»i^CUMENTS BSffft
SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC UBRAiRY
DOCUMENTS C EPARTMENT JAN Z 7 WS
SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY
3 1223 03476 7450
GOVERNMENT INFORMATION CENTER
SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY
CLOSED
STACKS
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2012 with funding from
California State Library Califa/LSTA Grant
http://archive.org/details/28minutesofsanfran1974sa
J«
]<y/]y DOCUMENTS
13^
FEB 1 1 1974
SAN FRANCISCO
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of the Regular Meeting held Thursday, January 3, 1974.
The City Planning Commission met pursuant to notice on Thursday, January
3, 1974, at 1:00 P.M. at 100 Larkin Street.
PRESENT: Mrs. Charles B. Porter, Vice President; John C. Farrell,
Mortimer Fleishhacker, Thomas J. Mellon, John Ritchie,
and Hector E. Rueda, members of the City Planning
Commission.
ABSENT: Walter S. Newman, President of the City Planning Commission.
The staff of the Department of City Planning was represented by Allan
B. Jacobs, Director of Planning; R.Spencer Steele, Assistant Director -
Implementation (Zoning Administrator); George A. Williams, Assistant Director •
Plans and Programs; Robert Passmore, Planner V (Zoning); Richard Gamble,
Planner IV; John Phair, City Planning Coordinator; Alec Bash, Planner III
(Zoning); Marie Zeller, Planner III - Administrative; and Lynn E. Pio,
Secretary.
Donald Canter represented the San Francisco Examiner; Larry Liebert
represented the San Francisco Chronicle; and Carol Kroot represented the
San Francisco Progress.
1:00 P.M. FIELD TRIP
Members of the Commission and staff departed from 100 Larkin Street at
1:00 P.M. to take a field trip to properties to be considered during the
Zoning Hearing to be held on January 10, 1974.
2:15 P.M., 100 LARKIN STREET
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved by Commissioner Rueda, seconded by Commissioner Fleishhacker,
and carried unanimously that the minutes of the meeting of November 29, 1973,
be approved as submitted.
CURRENT MATTERS
"Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, reported that the
Board of Supervisors had postponed consideration of the Com-
mission's proposed interim residential zoning controls until
January 21, 1974.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 2 - JANUARY 3, 1974
"The Director distributed copies of a Charter amendment
proposed by Supervisor Kopp concerning conflict of interest.
He also distributed copies of a memorandum prepared by the
League of California Cities on the State Conflict of Interest
Act.
"The Director advised the Commission that the Secretary
of the State Resources Agency has issued a series of amend-
ments to the State guidelines controlling environmental re-
view by local agencies; and he indicated that he will report
further on the changes following review of the changes by the
staff.
"The Director reported that the Board of Supervisors,
meeting on Wednesday, voted in favor of an ordinance author-
izing the Rehabilitation Assistance Program which will provide
low-interest rate loans for residential building repairs and
improvements in designated code enforcement areas."
R73.66 - RENTAL OF EASTERLY PORTION OF GENEVA AVENUE CARBARN SITE
Richard Gamble, Planner IV, reported on this matter as follows:
"The Municipal Railway wishes to rent, on a month-to-month
basis, the vacant lot east of the Geneva Avenue carbarn for use
by the contractor on the rerailing of the Twin Peaks Tunnel. It
would be used as temporary storage of new track material and sal-
vageable material such as ties, spikes, rails and tie plates.
Light assembly work would also take place on the site, primarily
the fastening of tie plates to wooden railroad ties. This activ-
ity will employ three men in daytime hours only (8 A.M. - 4:30 P.M.),
Final assembly will take place on the Muni right-of-way on 19th
Avenue 300 feet in both directions from Denslowe Drive. From there
the ties will be transported into the tunnel on flat car. The tun-
nel work will be done at night only and it will be usable for the
K and L lines during the daytime. The M line will have bus service
substituted for the duration of the project.
"Muni's intention is that the rental would not continue for
any appreciable length of time following completion of the project,
which is estimated to require between 200 and 245 calendar days.
"The carbarn site is zoned P; land surrounding on three sides,
including the other side of Delano Street, is zoned R-l , and
developed accordingly.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 3 - JANUARY 3, 1974
"This is not the first time that the Municipal Railway has
proposed using this site for open storage. In 1962 the con-
struction of the Southern Freeway was eliminating some of the
Muni's track storage area and they sought a use permit for a
five-year period to use this property for that purpose. They
agreed to install screen planting and improve the fence as
conditions of the approval. Neighborhood opposition caused
the Commission to reduce its approval to a three-year time
span, the length of time anticipated to complete freeway
construction.
"Muni is asking for a short-term use of the lot for
storage purposes, and is therefore not favorably disposed
to making an investment in long-term improvements to the
property, such as screen planting. Moreover, the storage is
for a contractor's use, not Muni's use and they do not fore-
see any continuing storage function on the site, despite the
array of reconstruction projects slated for the next few
years."
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, recommended that use of the pro-
perty for storage and light assembly activity be approved as in conformity
with the Master Plan provided that the rental and lease should cease thirty
days after completion of the retracking project.
Mrs. J. C. Roth, 632 Geneva Avenue, represented the Cayuga Improvement
Club. She emphasized that the subject property is located in a first-class
residential area; and she remarked that the carbarn site is ill-kept and a
blight on the neighborhood. She felt that the proposed use would be inap-
proriate in the subject single-family residential neighborhood; and, if ap-
proval were given for the lease of the subject lot, she felt that the Muni-
cipal Railway would be encouraged to seek tenants for three other vacant
parcels of property in the area.
Commissioner Fleishhacker felt that it would be preferable for the Com-
mission to set a specific termination date for the authorization instead of
merely indicating that the use should terminate thirty days after completion
of the retracking project. The Director, noting that the maximum time esti-
mated for the retracking project was 245 calendar days, recommended that the
authorization be terminated 275 days after commencement of the project.
Mrs. Roth advised the Commission that the City had removed houses from
the area to accommodate the widening of Geneva Avenue; and, although the City
had promised to remove the foundations of those buildings, it had not kept
its word.
Commissioner Farrell stated that he would ask the Municipal Railway to
look into the situation and to try to clean up the lots which it owns in that
area.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 4 - JANUARY 3, 1974
Mrs. Agnes Andrews, 721 Delano Street, stated that she had received a
letter from the City stating that it intended to sell the corner lot which
lies adjacent to her property.
After further discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Fleishhacker,
seconded by Commissioner Rueda, and carried unanimously that the Director
be authorized to report that rental of the vacant parcel of property at the
southwest corner of Delano and Geneva adjoining the carbarn, for storage
and light assembly activities related to retracking Twin Peaks Tunnel, is
in conformity with the Master Plan provided that said rental and use ter-
minate within 275 days of commencement of the project.
R73.71 - JURISDICTIONAL TRANSFER OF PROPERTIES IN WESTERN ADDITION
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA A-2 FOR MINIPARKS.
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, stated that the Redevelopment
Agency had requested that this matter be removed from the agenda and that the
Commission postponed action on the proposal until a later date.
EE73.165 - CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR
PROPOSED 35-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING WITH A HEIGHT OF
160 FEET TO BE LOCATED ON PROPERTY AT 897 CALIFORNIA
STREET, SOUTHEAST CORNER OF POWELL STREET
The Secretary read a letter which had been received from C. Edward Head,
President of the Nob Hill Association, indicating that the members of his
organization had not had sufficient time to study and evaluate the report
during the holiday season and requesting that the public hearing be post-
poned for thirty days.
Vice President Porter asked if any members of the audience wished to be
heard on this matter at the present time. No one responded.
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, recommended that the hearing be
postponed until the Commission's regular meeting on January 31, 1974, at
3:00 P.M.
Vice Pres. Porter asked if the postponement would result in great incon-
venience for the applicants. Ted Boone, representing the applicants, acknowl-
edged that the subject property is sensitively located and indicated that he
had no objection to a reasonable postponement for the purpose of allowing
interested citizens to become familiar with the Environmental Impact Report;
however, he questioned whether there was any "magic" in a thirty-day post-
ponement.
The Director replied in the negative but indicated that the agendas for
the meetings prior to January 31 are extremely crowded.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -5- JANUARY 3, 1974
After the applicants' architect, Rene Gardinaux, had responded to
several questions raised by Commissioner Ritchie concerning the design of
the proposed structure, it was moved by Commissioner Mellon, seconded by
Commissioner Fleishhacker, and carried unanimously that the hearing of the
subject environmental impact report be postponed until the Commission's
meeting on January 31, 1974.
A standard tape cassette recording of the proceedings is available in
the offices of the Department of City Planning for public listening or
transcription.
At 2:55 P.M. Vice President Porter announced that the meeting was re-
cessed. Members of the Commission then proceeded to Room 282, City Hall,
and reconvened at 3:00 P.M. for hearing of the remainder of the agenda.
CU73.45 - AREA BOUNDED GENERALLY BY FULTON, SHRADER, FELL AND
ST ANY AN STREETS
Request for authorization for a planned unit development for St. Mary's
Medical Offices and Hospital Master Plan; in an R-4 District. (Under advise-
ment from meeting of December 6, 1973).
Robert Passmore, Planner V (Zoning), summarized the presentation of this
matter which had been made by the staff of the Department of City Planning
during the Commission's meeting on December 6, 1973. He also noted that the
Commission, during the meeting on December 6, had certified the completeness
of the Environmental Impact Report for the hospital expansion and had found
that the project would have a significant effect on the environment, parti-
cularly in terms of housing and traffic issues. At the conclusion of the
public hearing on the conditional use application on that date, the staff of
the Department of City Planning had indicated that it was not prepared to
make any recommendation on the application; and, believing that the proposal
could be reviewed by the San Francisco Comprehensive Health Planning Council
within the month, the staff had recommended that the matter be continued un-
til today's meeting. Unfortunately, the San Francisco Comprehensive Health
Planning Council had not yet completed its review of the proposed project.
While the Council had written a letter requesting that the matter be conti-
nued under advisement for 30 additional days, the staff now understood that
the Council would be prepared to give the Commission its advice by January
11. The staff had also conferred with the City Attorney to determine whether
the Commission could legally act on an application involving privately-owned
land for which the hospital has been granted a certificate of necessity to
use powers of eminent domain for acquisition and had been advised by the
City Attorney that the Commission does have such authority. However, since
the hospital had not obtained a certificate of necessity for the property
located on the southeast corner of Fulton and Stanyan Streets, the Commis-
sion could not grant the hospital authorization for conditional use of that
property. During the interim, the staff of the Department of City Planning
had also been advised informally by the Traffic Engineering Bureau of the
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -6- JANUARY 3, 1974
Department of Public Works that location of the proposed office building on
an alternate site south of the new hospital would create greater traffic
congestion than the proposal presently under consideration. Mr. Passmore
stated that the first matter which should be decided by the Commission du-
ring the present meeting was whether the Commission wished to proceed with
its hearing on the application. In addition to the request for postponement
which had been received from the San Francisco Comprehensive Health Planning
Council, requests for postponement or continuation had also been received
from J. Engmann and from the Inner Sunset Action Committee (ISAC). In con-
clusion, he advised the Commission that the San Francisco Comprehensive
Health Planning Council had been established in 1969 under Federal law. He
indicated that the Council is responsible for determining the health needs
of San Francisco and for planning to meet those needs; and the Council is
required to review and comment on any health projects using State or Federal
funds. In addition, the Council serves the quasi -governmental capacity of
licensing hospitals involving the approval or disapproval of the number of
beds permitted in San Francisco. He stated that the Department of City Plan-
ning had sought advice from the Council in the past relating to proposals for
hospital bed facilities; however, until the staff had received a letter from
the Council offering to give its advice on the proposed medical office facil-
ity, the staff had not realized that the Council was prepared to offer advice
relating to non-bed hospital facilities.
Vice President Porter asked if the study of the proposed medical office
building would extend the jurisdiction of the Comprehensive Health Planning
Council. Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, replied that the Commission
need not be bound by any advice which might be offered by the Council. He
pointed out that the Council has expertise in the medical field; and, in view
of the fact that questions had arisen concerning the need for the proposed
facility during the public hearing held by the Commission on December 6, he
felt that the advice of the Comprehensive Health Planning Council would be
helpful. Therefore, he recommended that the public hearing be continued for
two weeks.
Commissioner Mellon stated that it seemed to him that the only matter
under consideration by the Commission was the particular location of the
office building on the site in view of the fact that the question of need
should have been decided when the Commission first approved the inclusion
of a medical office building in the hospital's master plan six years ago.
Commissioner Fleishhacker asked if a medical office building of the
size presently being proposed had been in the hospital's master plan for
six years. Mr. Passmore replied in the negative, indicating that the first
time that the staff of the Department of City Planning had learned of a pro-
posal for a medical office building had been in the spring of 1972; and that
proposal had not been brought before the Commission until December 6, 1973.
A plan which had been shown to the staff in 196G did indicate future north-
ward expansion of the hospital to Fulton Street; however, the Master Plan
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -7- JANUARY 3, 1974
which had been submitted and approved by the Commission in 1969 showed no
northward expansion on the site except for an interm's residence.
Commissioner Mellon remarked that the hospital's plans for construction
of a medical office building and, in any case, been a matter of public knowl-
edge; and he stated that the Comprehensive Health Planning Council had been
aware of the plans for the facility for at least two years.
Commissioner Fleishhacker asked if he had been correct in understanding
that the City Attorney had advised that the Commission could not consider the
property located on the southeast corner of Stanyan and Fulton Streets be-
cause the hospital has not obtained a certificate of necessity enabling it
to use the power of eminent domain for acquisition of that parcel of property.
Mr. Passmore replied that the City Attorney has indicated that the Commission
could not grant conditional use authorization affecting that parcel of pro-
perty. However, even though the property is not owned by the hospital, it
could be included in the hospital's master plan. He noted that the applicant
had made two changes in the master plan since the meeting of December 6. The
first change was to modify the master plan to indicate no new construction
south of Hayes Street; and the second change had involved deletion of the
property at the southeast corner of Stanyan and Fulton Streets from the first
phase of the master plan. However, the hospital had not formally deleted
the property at the southeast corner of Stanyan and Fulton Streets from its
conditional use application.
Commissioner Fleishhacker asked if there is a difference between a con-
ditional use application for a planned unit development and a conditional use
application filed under the provisions of Section 303 of the City Planning
Code. Mr. Passmore replied that the basic procedures involved in both in-
stances are substantially the same. A planned unit development is a special
type of conditional use involving a request for modification of specific
requirements of the City Planning Code for sites three acres in size or
larger; and he indicated that the conditional use application presently un-
der consideration was, in effect, a request for a planned unit unit develop-
ment.
Commissioner Fleishhacker stated that he supported the Director's recom-
mendation for a two week postponement. He remarked that the Commission was
actually considering a proposal for total development of the subject site for
hospital and other nedical uses; and, while the Comprehensive Health Plan-
ning Council's principal responsibility is to perform as a planning body for
hospitals, he remarked that nothing in its by-laws would preclude it from
giving advice to the Commission on related facilities.
Vice President Porter emphasized that the City Planning Commission has
responsibility for making zoning determinations; and she did not feel that
the matter presently before the Commission should be decided by the Compre-
hensive Health Planning Council, which has other responsibilities of its own.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -8- JANUARY 3, 1974
Commissioner Fleishhacker emphasized that the Director had stated that
the Commission need not be governed by the Council's advice; but he felt
that the Commission should be aware of the Council's determination as to
whether the proposed facility is both desirable and needed to serve the best
interests of the community's health care. He pointed out that a medical
office building is not a principal permitted use in a residential district;
and, while such a facility can be approved in a residential district as a
conditional use, the City Planning Code specifies that the Commission, in
granting a conditional use, must establish "that the proposed use or feature,
at the size and intensity contemplated and at the proposed location, will
provide a development that is necessary or desirable for, and compatible
with, the neighborhood or the community; and that such use or feature as
proposed will not be detrimental to the health, safety, convenience or
general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious
to property, improvements, or potential development in the vicinity." He
believed that the advice of the Comprehensive Health Planning Council would
be an important aid to the Commission in determining whether those criteria
were met by the proposed development; and, while other members of the Com-
mission might presume that the findings of the Council would be negative,
he indicated that he had not made that assumption.
Commissioner Ritchie displayed a map dated 1958 which had been prepared
for St. Mary's Hospital by Hertzk and Knowles; and he pointed out that the
map clearly indicated a large "L-shape" structure to be located on the south-
east corner of Fulton and Stanyan Streets. While the structure was not
labeled for office use, it was nevertheless apparent that a major building
was being contemplated. He then asked the Director to comment on the type
of information which the Comprehensive Health Planning Council might be ex-
pected to provide concerning the proposed facility.
The Director replied that the Council would be able to advise the Com-
mission as to whether an office structure of the scale contemplated would
be a necessary or desirable facility in terms of meeting the health care
needs of the City. He emphasized that the Council would not be expected to
provide advice on the design of the building or its location on the site
since those matters are within the expertise of the staff of the Department
of City Planning to evaluate.
Commissioner Ritchie observed that the Commission had previously taken
the subject application under advisement for one mcnth; and, under the cir-
cumstances, he indicated that he would be opposed to further delay.
Mr. Passmore stated that the plans which had been prepared by Hertzk
and Knowles had been drawn in 1968 rather than in 1958 and were apparently
misdated. In any case, he emphasized that the plans which had been ap-
proved by the Commission in 1969 did not show a building on the southeast
corner of Stanyan and Fulton Streets. Furthermore, the hospital neither
had an option to purchase that property nor did it have the power of emi-
nent domain in 1969; and, as a result, he was confident that the nature of
any building being contemplated for that property had not been discussed
before the Commission at that time.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -9- JANUARY 3, 1974
Christian J. Matthew, Director of Planning and Development for St. Mary's
Hospital, confirmed that the Hertzk and Knowles plans had been drawn in 1968
and that they were inaccurately dated.
Commissioner Farrell stated that he did not feel that any information
which could be provided by the Comprehensive Health Planning Council would
be helpful to him in reaching a decision on the subject application. He
stated that he was familiar with the operation of the medical center; and
he was convinced that services which the center provides are necessary and
desirable for the community. He remarked that it is a common practice across
the country for medical office buildings to be included in hospital complexes;
and he indicated that experience has pointed to the fact that locating medical
office building in proximity to hospitals is of overall benefit to the services
provided by the hospitals. He stated that his reaction to the subject appli-
cation was positive.
Commissioner Rueda asked if the staff of the Department of City Planning
had first approached the Comprehensive Health Planning Council or if the
Council had first approached the staff. The Director replied that the staff
had not approached the Council because it was not aware that the Council pro-
vide expertise on the issue under consideration. However, when the Council
offered to provide advice on the matter, the staff had indicated that it
would be glad to receive the information.
Commissioner Mellon observed that the Comprehensive Health Planning
Council had not previously offered advice concerning medical office buildings
in spite of the fact that almost all of the hospitals in the city now have
such facilities.
Vice President Porter remarked that delays by the Commission in approving
plans inevitably increase the applicant's cost; and, in view of the fact that
the subject application had been filed in September, she felt that the Com-
prehensive Health Planning Council should have been able to give its advice
to the staff already.
Commissioner Fleishhacker asked representatives of the hospital to com-
ment on the two-week postponement which had been recommended by the Director.
Christian J. Matthew, Director of Planning and Development for St. Mary's
Hospital, stated that the staff of the Department of City Planning and the
City Planning Commission have a right to consult with any organization which
might be able to provide information pertinent to the question at hand. How-
ever, he did wish to register concern about the possibility of further post-
ponement of the Commission's action on the subject application. He stated
that it had been expected that the application would come before the Commis-
sion in September; but the staff of the Department of City Planning had re-
quested a one month's delay for completion of the Environmental Impact Re-
port. Subsequently, additional requests for delay had arisen, causing the
hospital increasing concern. In conclusion, he stated that the estimated
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -10- JANUARY 3, 1974
cost for construction of the proposed facility is escalating at the rate of
$100,000 per month.
Commissioner Fleishhacker inquired about the total estimated cost of
the project. Mr. Matthew replied that the total cost of the project was
estimated at $10 million. He also advised the Commission that the organiza-
tion which had preceded the Comprehensive Health Planning Council had ap-
proved a Master Plan for St. Mary's which had included properties up to
Fulton Street even though that same plan had not been approved by the Com-
mission because the hospital did not owned all of the land at the time.
He emphasized that the Comprehensive Health Planning Council had indicated
that its report would be available prior to today's meeting; and he had
expected that the Council would meet that deadline.
Commissioner Fleishhacker asked Mr. Matthew if he felt that the pro-
posed two-week delay would be unnecessary and undesirable. Mr. Matthew re-
plied in the affirmative.
After further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Ritchie, seconded
by Commissioner Farrell and carried 4 to 2 that the request to postpone ac-
tion on the conditional use application be denied. Commissioners Farrell,
Mellon, Porter, and Ritchie voted "Aye"; Commissioners Fleishhacker and
Rueda voted "No".
The Commission then proceeded with the public hearing on the conditional
use application.
Mr. Matthew advised the Commission that a number of meetings had taken
place since the public hearing on December 6, including two meetings in-
volving members of the community. During the previous hearing, a question
had been raised as to why it would be possible to locate the proposed office
building south of the existing hospital. Because of height limitations and
other restrictions, the hospital believed that it would be impossible to
locate the office facility south of the hospital; and, if the facility were
to be located in that area, it was the hospital's opinion that traffic in
the area would become more intolerable than if the facility were to be
located north of the hospital. The hospital had asked representatives of
the community to offer alternatives to the proposed master plan; and the
hospital itself had suggested that the project might be phased in a way
which would make it more acceptable to the neighborhood; but the neighbor-
hood representatives had not regarded that as a reasonable alternative.
Another issue which had been raised was that of housing. The hospital
recognized that housing is a matter of social concern; and it believed that
it should be possible for it to help all residents and owners of properties
which would be acquired for the expansion to relocate. In fact, the hos-
pital had asked a realty firm to conduct a brief survey of rentals avail-
able within a one mile radius of the subject site; and the results of the
survey had indicated that suitable relocation housing could be found. He
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -11- JANUARY 3, 1974
stated that the hospital had had a preliminary meeting with a member of the
staff of the Comprehensive Health Planning Council. The hospital had also
requested friends of the hospital to sign a petition in support of the sub-
ject conditional use application; and 1651 signatures were recorded.
Commissioner Fleishhacker asked about the proportion of the proposed
complex which would be devoted to medical office buildings and the proportion
which would be used for accessory medical facilities. Mr. Matthew replied
that approximately 111,000 square feet of space would be assigned for doc-
tors' offices, 18,000 square feet of space would be assigned for support
facilities, and 12,000 square feet of space would be assigned for a clinic
and for community educational purposes.
Commissioner Fleishhacker asked if the accessory medical facilities to
be housed in the office complex are presently located in the hospital; and,
if so, are they available for both in-patient and out-patient care. Mr.
Matthew replied that some of the most sophisticated equipment in the hospital
would continue to be used for both in-patient and out-patient care while the
office building would have its own x-ray laboratory as well as other relative-
ly uncomplicated equipment.
Commissioner Ritchie, reviewing the petition which Mr. Matthew had
submitted in support of the application, remarked that many of the people
who had signed the petition live in the subject neighborhood while others
live in other parts of the city or outside of the city altogether; and he
indicated that it was his impression that the hospital serves the city as a
whole.
Mr. Matthew stated that he agreed with Commissioner Ritchie; and, for
that reason, the hospital had decided that any one who wished to support the
conditional use application should be allowed to sign the petition. He
stated that most of the hospital's patients do come from San Francisco; how-
ever, some of the hospital's patients do come from other communities.
Commissioner Farrell asked if he were correct in understanding that
St. Mary's Hospital has the only in-patient facility for adolescent mental
health care in San Francisco. Mr. Matthew replied that the St. Mary's does
have the only sizable facility of that sort in the city, the only other one
being a very small clinic at the Langley-Porter Institute.
Commissioner Fleishhacker asked if the in-patient adolescent mental
health care clinic would be located in the proposed facility which was pres-
ently under consideration by the Commission. Mr. Matthew replied in the
negative.
Daniel Donovan, operator of a pharmacy located in a medical building
at 2156 Hayes Street, stated that he had been in business in the neighbor-
hood for 15 years; and, during that time, he had seen the neighborhood dete-
riorate. At one time, approximately 50 physicians maintained offices in the
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEET INS -12- JANUARY 3, 1974
area while less than 20 are in the area at the present time. Those who had
left had done so because the neighborhood does not have adequate office space
or sufficient off-street parking and because of the undesirability of bring-
ing their patients into a neighborhood which is deteriorating. He thought that
construction of a large new office building would encourage more people to
invest in the area; and, as a result, he believed that more new housing would
be developed.
Commissioner Fleishhacker remarked that Dr. Soloman, former Chief of Staff
of St. Mary's Hospital, had testified during the hearing on December 6 that
approximately 60 doctors have offices in the immediate vicinity.
Mr. Donovan stated that he could count less than 20 medical offices in the
area; however, he was convinced that physicians who had left would return to the
neighborhood if the new office building were to be constructed.
Stoner Lichty, owner of apartment buildings housing 26 tenants in the area,
stated that several of his tenants had told him how much they appreciate the
proximity of the clinic of St. Mary's Hospital; and, since he was aware that the
continued existence of the clinic would depend upon the help of the hospital, he
wished to offer his support to the subject application.
William L. Wagner, 175 Clifford Terrace, expressed his strong support for
the conditional use application and stated that the only thing which would en-
courage landlords such as himself to improve their property would be an infusion
of new capital into the area.
Sherwood Stockwell, architect for St. Mary's Hospital, indicated that he
was present to answer any questions whhch might be raised by the Commission con-
cerning the design of the proposed facility. He also noted that one of the
major adverse effects of the project cited in the Environmental Impact Report
related to traffic considerations; and he indicated that a representative of
the Traffic Engineering Bureau of the Department of Public Works was also present
in the audience.
Commissioner Fleishhacker, noting that a comment had been made earlier in
the meeting relative to the fact that location of the medical office building
south of the hospital would generate greater traffic problems than an office
building located along Fulton Street, asked if any comparison had been made
between the present traffic situation in the area and the situation which will
exist if the buildings are constructed as proposed.
Mr. Spagnelli, representing the Traffic Engineering Bureau of the Department
of Public Works, estimated that the proposed facility would increase the volume
of traffic on Fulton Street by approximately 50 percent. Since Stanyan Street
is already a major thoroughfare, he felt that the traffic which would be generated
by the proposed facility would have very little effect on the traffic situation
on that street. Since the existing volume on Shrader Street is extremely low,
any additional traffic whatsoever would have an incremental effect.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -K3- JANUARY 3, 1974
Commissioner Fleishhacker asked if any of the streets in the immediate
vicinity have been designated as major transit streets. Mr. Passmore replied
that Fulton, Hayes, and Stanyan Streets had all been designated as transit-
preferential streets.
Anna Guth advised the Commission that the Haight Ashbury Improvement
Association strongly supported the subject application.
David Finn objected to Mrs. Guth's statement and indicated that he had
a copy of the minutes of a recent meeting of that organization indicating
that the members were opposed to the application.
Vice President Porter observed that the Commission could assume that
the membership of the Haight Ashbury Improvement Association was not unanimous
in its support of or opposition to the application.
Miss Leandra Erpelding, 1212 11th Avenue, informed the Commission that
the Sisters of Mercy, who operate St. Mary's Hospital, have provided service
to the San Francisco community for 120 years; and she recited a history of
activities in which the Order has been active.
Mrs. Vincent P. Finigan, 201 Vicente Street, remarked that neighbors
who were now objecting to the subject application had made use of every square
inch of the hospital.
Douglas Engmann, 408 Stanyan Street, representing an organization composed
of residents of the neighborhood who were opposed to the proposed project,
indicated that they were outraged by the Commission's decision not to grant
the request for a two-week postponement. He stated that he had obtained
approximately 600 signatures in opposition to the application within a two
to three-block radius of the subject site; and he informed the Commission
that 75 percent of the owners of residential property in the area had signed
the petition. He displayed a map which he had prepared to show the location
of properties owned or occupied by individuals who had signed the petition in
opposition to the application; and he observed that the lots which had been
colored on the map represented approximately 90 percent of the lots in the area.
He stated that the neighborhood was entirely opposed to the proposed project;
and he indicated that they would not be satisfied until they have won a victory
over the hospital. He questioned the validity of the petition which had been
submitted by the hospital in support of the application insofar as the hos-
pital had solicited signatures from its employees and from sick people; and
he stated that opponents to the application would not have used such tactics.
He also believed that the Commission, in approving the application, would be
establishing a precedent. He stated that not all hospitals in San Francisco
have office buildings at the present time; however, it is apparent that some
of them are beginning to apply for such facilities. Eventually, if the trend
should continue, he believed that the City would have a surplus of doctor's
offices, just as it now has a surplus of hospital beds. In fact, he had seen
a number of "vacancy" signs on medical office buildings in the subject neighbor-
hood and in other neighborhoods throughout the City. He doubted that there is a
need for an additional medical office building; and, as a result, he regretted
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -14- JANUARY 3, 1974
that the Commission had denied the Comprehensive Health Planning Council an
opportunity to present its advice on the question of need. By approving the
subject application, the Commission would be "bulldozing" people out of their
homes. He also noted that the conditional use application could affect prop-
erties which are not presently owned by the hospital; and he indicated that
he seriously questioned the legality of that type of action. He remarked that
the hospital had not obtained a certificate of necessity to use eminent domain
powers to acquire the property on the southeast corner of Fulton and Stanyan
Streets, even though the owner of that property had stated that he had no inten-
tion of selling the property to the hospital; and, if the hospital did not
intend to build on that property, he thought that it should make a declaration
to that effect.
Commissioner Ritchie asked Mr. Engmann what alternate proposal he could
offer for development of the hospital.
Mr. Engmann replied that residents of the neighborhood would prefer that
no office building whatsoever be constructed; however, they would be willing
to consider a proposal for an office building which would conform to the guide-
lines established in the Haight Ashbury Plan, i. e. one which would be located
on property already owned by the hospital and which would take community needs
and traffic concerns into consideration. He remarked that the section of the
City Planning Code which had been read by Commissioner Fleishhacker requires
the Commission to determine that a facility is needed before granting condi-
tional use approval for its construction; yet, no determination had been made
that the proposed facility is, in fact, needed. The Code also provides that a
project approved as a conditional use shall not have a detrimental effect on
the neighborhood in which it is to be located; and, in that regard, he noted
that the Commission had already certified that the proposed facility would have
an adverse impact on the neighborhood, particularly in terms of traffic conges-
tion and the removal of existing dwelling units. He questioned the legality
of the conditional use application because it included property which is not
owned by the hospital; and he believed that approval of the application would
invalidate the Haight Ashbury Plan which represented the culmination of three
years of work. Under the circumstances, he felt that the Commission should
disapprove the application.
Commissioner Rueda asked how many people had signed the petition in opposi-
tion to the application. Mr. Engmann replied that 810 signatures had been
obtained, 600 of which were from individuals residing within a two-or three-
block radius of the subject property.
Commissioner Ritchie asked how many tenants would be directly affected
by the proposed project. Mr. Engmann replied that the project would require
the removal of ten buildings containing a total of 48 dwelling units. Seven
of the buildings are privately-owned, while three are owned by the hospital.
Calvin Welch, representing the Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council,
submitted and summarized the following prepared statement.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -15- JANUARY 3, 1974
"At its regular general membership meeting on December 13, .
1973, the Haight-Ashbury Neighborhood Council once again unanimously
reaffirmed its opposition to St. Mary's proposed Medical Office Building.
"The reasons for that position have been set out twice before this
Commission and, of course, reaffirmed by your action on December 6 when
you agreed that the project would have a 'significant* — that is harmful--
effect on the housing stock and traffic congestion in our neighborhood.
"The two remaining issues before the Commission are:
"a) Amending St. Mary's Master Plan.
"b) Granting of a Conditional Use Permit for the building of
the office complex.
"Both should be denied.
"St. Mary's Hospital has, in fact, no Master Plan to amend. They
have, to quote Mr. Matthew, a series of 'drawings ...prepared to illustrate
how the Master Plan of St. Mary's Hospital and Medical Center might evolve
over the years'. Indeed, the drawings shown me by Mr. Stockwell and Mr.
Matthew on Dscember 26 had changed from the drawings shown the Commission
on December 6. For example, the drawings displayed on the 26th showed no
future development on the block bounded by Fell, Hayes, Stanyan and Shrader
as did the drawings shown the Commission on December 6. Plans that change
in twenty days are, of course, not master plans; they are political plans,
if you will.
"The Commission in 1972 denied Harkness Hospital a Conditional Use
Permit for Beverly Manor Nursing Home because the hospital had no Master
Plan. To do otherwise in this case would show the rankest sort of favorit-
ism to St. Mary's
"Also, as was set out in HANC's December 6th presentation, the Commis-
sion's Final Report on the Haight-Ashbury lays important stress on hospitals
in the Haight-Ashbury not only having Master Plans approved only after a
public hearing (this St. Mary's has never done) but also requiring such
Master Plans to:
'Take into account needs of the Haight-Ashbury community,
including, but not limited to, the need to maintain an adequate
supply of low and moderate priced housing, the need to reduce
traffic congestion and the demand for parking, and the need to
provide medical and social services to the community insofar as
possible.' (Memorandum, Haight-Ashbury Final Report, p. 9).
"A changing set of drawings pointing out how the Hospital 'might
evolve over the years' hardly fulfills such a requirement.
"Turning to the question of the Conditional Use Application, St.
Mary's application includes property it does not own nor has it applied
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING _16_ JANUARY 3, 1974
for eminent domain powers to condemn. In short, it is requesting that
the Commission grant it a use for property it neither owns nor has the
power to acquire. This alone should be sufficient reason to turn down
the request.
"Of course, if the application is amended to exclude that property,
then a new hearing at a later date should occur — after St. Mary's
produces a Master Plan.
"You have already certified that the office building would have an
adverse effect on the environment, displace 150 residents and destroy
critically needed and scarce middle to low-priced housing units in a
residential neighborhood. What is the counter-balancing medical need
served? Office space for doctors is not in short supply. Nearly forty
such offices are within a block of the Hospital now.
"San Francisco Comprehensive Health Planning Council was asked by
the Commission to look into the medical need side of this issue. Its
president, Dr. Sanford Feldman has requested an additional one month
delay to study that question. Such time as is needed must be granted
S.F.C.H.P., for the medical need side of the question is critical. Un-
less there is an overwhelming need for office space for doctors then the
disadvantages already known to be part of the project far outweigh mere
convenience or profit for the Hospital.
"Therefore, the Haight-Ashbury Neighborhood Council recommends:
"1) St. Mary's be required to develop a Master Plan in
accordance with the Commission requirements set forth in the
Haight-Ashbury Final Report.
"2) The Conditional Use Permit be denied because St. Mary's:
"a) has no Master Plan and
"b) wishes to use property it does not own nor have an
ability to acquire through eminent domain.
"3) San Francisco Comprehensive Health Planning Council be
be asked to hold a hearing, with Planning Department staff reporting
on the requirements of the Haight-Ashbury Final Report, to determine
the medical need of a doctor's office building and that the Commission
postpone final action until the results of that hearing are presented
to it."
In conclusion, Mr. Welch stated that a brochure which had been circulated
in the neighborhood by the hospital had described a master plan which was dif-
ferent from the one presented before the Commission. In addition, he noted
that the brochure had listed Mrs. Thomas J. Mellon as a member of the hospital's
development committee; and, if that Mrs. Mellon was Commissioner Mellon's wife,
he questioned whether it was appropriate for Commissioner Mellon to be
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -17- JANUARY 3, 1974
participating in the Commission's deliberations.
Commissioner Mellon stated that he used to be affiliated with the St.
Mary's hospital; however, he had severed his ties with the institution in
1964 after assuming the office of Chief Administrative Officer. He stated
that he has no control over Mrs. Mellon' s committee activities.
Mr. Welch advised the Commission that the principles and policies in
the Haight Ashbury Plan relating to institutional expansion had been of
great concern to residents of the neighborhood; and he emphasized that St.
Mary's Hospital had never raised any objection to the process proposed
during the course of the Haight Ashbury study.
Mrs. Vera Duhon stated that her grandparents, who are elderly, live
on property which they own at 2253 Fulton Street; and she indicated that a
forced move would be an intolerable hardship for them. She stated that St.
Mary's Hospital is good for the community; but she emphasized that the
hospital has already been constructed. The only facilities presently under
consideration were an office building and a parking garage. She stated that
what is wrong with the world today is that people have forgotten about each
other; and she stated that her parents belong in the subject neighborhood.
Willie Protho, her grandfather, stated that women have always felt
strongly about their homes; and, in view of the fact that the matter before
the Commission involved the demolition of dwelling units, he was surprised
that there were not 4 or 5 thousand women in the audience to object to the
application.
Commissioner Rueda asked if St. Mary's Hospital had made an effort to
purchase Mr. Protho's property. Mrs. Duhon replied in the negative, indicat-
ing that her parents had been approached by no one except a real estate agent
a year or so ago. She also advised the Commission that her daughter, who
lives with her grandparents, is able to attend the Andrew Jackson as a walk-
in student because she lives in the neighborhood.
David Finn, a member of the Haight Ashbury Improvement Association,
informed the Commission that the only recent meeting of the organization at
which a quorum was present was held on November 7; and, while no vote was
taken at that meeting regarding the subject application, he indicated that
the general concensus of opinion was in opposition to the application. He
emphasized that most of the space in the proposed facility would be devoted
to office use; and, if new offices were to be constructed, he felt that they
would be better located on either Hayes or Fulton Street, both of which are
in need of commercial t'evelopment. Instead of constructing a new office build-
ing on the subject site, he thought that the hospital should assist doctors
in locating their offices on those streets.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -18- JANUARY 3, 1974
Arden Danekas, representing the Planning Area for the Richmond (PAR),
felt that the Commission should withhold action on the subject application
until it has received the advice of the Comprehensive Health Planning Council.
Jeraldine deStefano, resident of a building owned by St. Mary's Hospital
at 424 Stanyan Street, stated that she had taken her child to the hospital's
clinic on one occasion when he was injured; and the clinic had refused to
even look at the child because her doctor was not affiliated with the hospital.
Under the circumstances, she questioned the extent to which the clinic provides
a service for the neighborhood. She stated that she regretted losing her
apartment. She had already started looking for a new dwelling; but she had
found nothing renting for less than $200, a price level which she felt she
could not afford. In reply to a question raised by Commissioner Ritchie, she
stated that she currently pays $160 a month for an apartment which has two bed-
rooms; and she indicated that she had previously lived in the vicinity of
Fulton and Filmore Streets, which is a much rougher neighborhood.
Paul Miller, a resident of the Haight Ashbury neighborhood, stated that
his neighbors were extremely concerned about the ramifications which the type
of facility being proposed would have in the area. He felt that the only
justification for such a project would be proof of an over-riding need for
the facility; yet, no evidence of that need had been demonstrated. He remarked
that St. Mary's Hospital has a fairly good reputation and that it will have
one of the newest hospital buildings in the city; and, in view of the fact
that members of the Catholic faith preferentially seek treatment at St. Mary's
Hospital because of its Roman Catholic affiliation, he did not feel that the
hospital is in a bad competitive position. As alternatives to the project
being proposed, he suggested that the hospital might consider constructing
medical offices on lots which it already owns, that it might consider convert-
ing existing surplus bed space for office use, as was done by Mary's Help
Hospital in Daly City, or that it might become involved in the development
of small scale primary-cluster offices throughout the city which might be
linked to the hospital by a special transportation system. In conclusion, he
emphasized that the Environmental Impact Report on the proposed project had
indicated that one third of the proposed office building would be occupied
by doctors who are not now practicing in the neighborhood.
April Duhon, speaking again on behalf of her grandmother and grandfather
who live at 2253 Fulton Street, stated that no one should have the right to
force people to move out of their homes; and, because construction of the
proposed project would have that effect, she felt that it should be disapproved.
Vice President Porter asked if the hospital intended to acquire all of
the property involved in the immediate future. Mr. Matthew replied that full
development of the master plan would require the acquisition of all parcels
of property for which the hospital had obtained certificates of necessity,
authorizing it to use eminent domain powers. While some people seemed to
regard the power of eminent domain as being a terrible threat, he remarked
that certain tax advantages do accrue to the seller when the power is exercised;
and, in any case, he indicated that the hospital does intend to assist in the
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -19" JANUARY 3, 1974
relocation of people who are displaced.
Commissioner Fleishhacker asked if he were correct in understanding
that "full development" of the first phase of the master plan would not
involve acquisition of the property located on the southeast corner of
Stanyan and Fulton Streets which is owned by Mr. O'Neill. Mr. Matthew
replied in the affirmative. He stated that Mr. O'Neill had indicated that
he would not be willing to sell his property at the present time although
he might be willing to sell it at some future date.
Commissioner Fleishhacker then remarked that Phase 1 of the proposed
medical office project would involve only property which is already owned
by the hospital; and, if only Phase I were to be completed, he wondered
what facilities would be available.
Mr. Matthew replied that Phase I was intended to consist exclusively
of medical offices while Phase II would provide a clinic and facilities for
the hospital's community health and education programs. If only the first
phase of the project were to be permitted, however, that building would have
to provide some space for each of the various activities which he had mentioned,
Commissioner Fleishhacker then asked if the hospital was proposing to
move the clinic from its existing quarters to the new building because the
building which it presently occupies is antiquated. Mr. Matthew replied in
the negative, indicating that the clinic would operate more efficiently if
it were located in the medical office building; and he indicated that the
clinic would also be more useful for training purposes if it were to be located
in the new complex.
Commissioner Ritchie stated that he was confused by a letter addressed
to Mr. Matthew under date of February 25, 1972, and signed by Edwin Dunn
and Calvin Welch of the Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council and by the
Rev. Lyle W. Grosjean, director of the Ecumenical Ministry in the Haight
Ashbury, which contained the following statements:
"We appreciate the support of St. Mary's Hospital for Haight-
Ashbury rezoning. We support the attempts of St. Mary's Hospital
to engage itself in meaningful dialogue on the requirements and
opinions of the neighborhood of which it is a part. We wish
that the other hospitals in our neighborhood were equally coopera-
tive.
"We agree with the just and sensible position taken by St. Mary's
Hospital confining its development to the blocks it currently
occupies (those being the entire blocks numbered 1191, 1192, and
1213 on the Assessor's map.)
"We further agree that St. Mary's Hospital has an indisputable
right to develop the property mentioned above in any manner it
sees fit that will enable it to better serve the health needs
of our community and the wider community of San Francisco."
MINUTES OF. THE REGULAR MEETING -20- JANUARY 3, 1974
Since the plans which were presently under consideration involved
only properties located in blocks currently occupied by the hospital, he
did not understand why Mr. Welch had repudiated the position stated in the
letter and had spoken in opposition to the application.
Mr. Matthew stated that the hospital had been surprised when it had
first learned that it was considered to be part of the Haight Ashbury
district. Later, while making it clear that the hospital was in agreement
with the basic concept of the Haight Ashbury Plan, he had emphasized that
the hospital's master plan required further expansion in the three blocks
which it presently occupies as defined in the letter to which Commissioner
Ritchie had referred. On the basis of the commitment contained in that letter,
he had supported the neighborhood's request for large scale re-zoning of the
area. He stated that he could not explain why the people who had signed the
letter had reversed their position.
Mr. Welch advised the Commission that the letter in question represented
part of a "trade-off" between neighborhood organizations and St. Mary's
Hospital; and, regardless of what words might have been used in the letter,
the intent had been that the hospital should not expand beyond property which
it then owned in the three blocks mentioned.
Commissioner Rueda asked if the people who had written the letter had
requested Mr. Matthew to identify the property which was then owned by the
hospital. Mr. Welch replied that they already had that information since
they had been required to supply the Department of City Planning with a list
of the owners of property included in the re-zoning application.
Rev. Lyle W. Grosjean stated that the people who had signed the letter
were primarily concerned about the proposed re-zoning at that time; and he
indicated that it had not occurred to him at that time that the hospital
would be given the authority to take homes away from people who do not wish
to sell them. He emphasized that the need for the proposed facility had not
been proven to residents of the neighborhood; and he remarked that the indi-
viduals who were opposing the application were anxious to preserve a neighbor-
hood setting in which people can act voluntarily.
Delia MacPherson, owner of property at 2263-65 Fulton Street, stated
that one of her tenants is moving; and, until such time as it is clear whether
or not the hospital will proceed with the project, she would not be able to
estimate how much she should spend to maintain the quality of the units in
her building.
Michael O'Neill, owner of the apartment building on the southeast
corner of Fulton and Stanyan Streets, felt that the hospital should build
only a portion of the project initially, and that it should then wait for
approximately five years before deciding whether to proceed with the remain-
der of the project. He also advised the Commission that he was pleased that
his property had been deleted from the hospital's immediate plans.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -21- JANUARY 3, 1974
Sue Hestor, representing San Francisco Tomorrow, stated that she was
strongly opposed to the application because of her concern about the effect
which traffic generated by the proposed project would have on the neighbor-
hood and on Golden Gate Park. She noted that the Environmental Impact Report
had stated that the facility would generate 1500 automobile trips a day; and
it was her personal feeling that that figure represented an "under-estimate".
She doubted that the parking spaces being proposed would be approved by the
Federal Environmental Protection Agency; and, even if that approval were to
be obtained, she believed that the hospital would probably charge people a
fee to park in its garage. In either case, people arriving at the facility
by automobile would probably be inclined to park on the street or across the
street in Golden Gate Park. She felt that the representative of the Traffic
Engineering Bureau of the Department of Public Works had been extremely vague;
and she disagreed with his statement to the effect that additional traffic
would have no great effect on streets which already carry a great deal of traf-
fic. By approving the subject application, she believed that the Commission
would create a gigantic traffic bottleneck.
John Bardis, representing the Housing and Zoning Committee of the Inner-
Sunset Action Committee (ISAC), stated that he had met with representatives
of the hospital and the Department of City Planning during the interim since
the Commission's last hearing and had asked for a copy of the hospital's
master plan. All that he had received from the hospital in return was a set
of drawings and no information whatsoever concerning the financing of the pro-
posed project. In the absence of data relating to the cost of each of the
proposed buildings and the methods to be used to finance them, he did not
believe that what the hospital had given him was, in effect, a master plan.
He also remarked that the. Bay Area already has a surplus of 1,000 hospital
beds; and he stated that the density of hospital beds in San Francisco is
double that of other communities in the Bay Area. He acknowledged that there
may have been a need for additional hospital beds when the City Planning Commis-
sion approved the new hospital building for St. Mary's four years ago; but he
emphasized that the situation had changed since that time.
Commissioner Ritchie advised Mr. Bardis that matters of financing were
the concern of the hospital and not the concern of the City Planning Commission,
Commissioner Fleishhacker noted that Mr. Matthew had stated earlier in
the meeting that the cost of the total project would be approximately 10 mil-
lion dollars.
Mr. Bardis stated that it continued to be his opinion that no master
plan existed since no information had been made available regarding the fi-
nancing of the proposed project; and he noted that the Commission had previous-
ly refused to approve an expansion project proposed by Harkness Hospital be-
cause that hospital had no master plan.
Commissioner Rueda asked if other institutional master plans which had
been approved by the Commission had contained information relative to proposed
methods of financing. The Director replied in the negative.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -22- JANUARY 3, 1974
Mr. Bardis advised the Commission that the occupancy rate of hospital
beds in San Francisco is now down to 68 percent; and he emphasized that the
surplus beds are being paid for by the patients who are using the hospitals.
In conclusion, he submitted a chart which he had prepared to reflect hospital
use trends in San Francisco.
Mary Burns, representing Assemblyman Willie L. Brown, stated that the
Assemblyman did not feel that destruction of existing housing is in the best
interests of the Haight-Ashbury neighborhood or of the City as a whole. She
also informed the Commission that the Assemblyman had served on a Joint Com-
mittee on Siting of Teaching Hospitals; and he was prepared to offer the
expertise of his staff to look into alternatives to the project being pro-
posed by St. Mary's Hospital.
Norma Harrison, a resident on Grove Street, stated that community feeling
has been broken down over the past 30 years as institutions and facilities
have become centralized; and, as a result, institutions such as St. Mary's
Hospital have ceased to be concerned about people who live in the neighbor-
hood in which they are located. She did not feel that the people who had
signed the petition in support of the subject application were fully informed
about the nature of the project being proposed.
Mrs. Susan Bierman, 1529 Shrader Street, stated that she had attended
many meetings concerned with the planning of her neighborhood and prided
herself on being an informed resident of the area; yet, she had been surprised
to find that St, Mary's Hospital, during the course of the Haight-Ashbury
study, had purposely neglected to mention that it was planning to construct
a major office building and a 1500 car parking garage. When plans for the
proposed project were finally made public, they had seemed to her to be so
bad that it had never occurred to her that they would be approved. She
advised the Commission that residents of the neighborhood would accept a
medical office building, but only if it were smaller in scale than the one
proposed and only if fewer parking spaces were to be provided. Under the
circumstances, she urged the Commission to instruct the staff to work further
with the hospital and the neighborhood to reduce the scale of the project.
A member of the audience who resides in the vicinity of the old Notre
Dame hospital site stated that he had read in the newspaper that St. Mary's
Hospital has plans for that property; and, since he had not been able to
obtain any information on that subject from the hospital, he had decided to
bring the question to the Commission.
Vice President Porter explained that representatives of the hospital had
'advised the Commission on December 6 that a Federally-financed housing program
was being considered for that site; and she asked Mr. Matthew if he would
comment on the present status of that project.
Mr. Matthew stated that the hospital had signed an agreement with the
Maisin Development Corporation In support of their application to the Federal
Department of Housing and Urban Development for funds; and, if that application
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -23- JANUARY 3, 1974
were approved, the buildings on that property would be converted into approx-
imately 230 subsidized dwelling units.
Mr. Engmann stated that he felt that the antagonism which the Commission
had displayed to members of the community was absolutely disgraceful; and he
thought that it was noteworthy that every individual who had spoken in opposi-
tion to the application had spoken as if the Commission's decision had already
been made.
Commissioner Fleishhacker, observing that the first action before the
Commission would be to approve or disapprove the hospital's master plan,
asked that he be shown the precise document which was before the Commission
for action. The document was put before Commissioner Fleishhacker and explained
by Mr. Passmore and the Director.
Vice President Porter then asked the Director for his recommendation.
The Director stated that the staff of the Department of City Planning,
until earlier in the morning, had anticipated that the hospital would acceed
to the request for a two~week continuation and that the continuation would be
granted. In view of that anticipation, and because the staff felt strongly
that the information which would be provided by the San Francisco Comprehensive
Health Planning Council might be central to its recommendation, the staff had
deferred preparation of its recommendations. Therefore, the staff was not
prepared to recommend approval of the project; however, and by the same token,
the staff was not prepared to recommend disapproval of the hospital's proposals.
The staff merely wished to have an opportunity to obtain additional information
which might be pertinent before making its final determination on the matter.
He remarked that the testimony which had been offered during the course of the
public hearing had not provided any substantial information to convince the
staff of the necessity or desirability of a facility of the size of the one
being proposed; and he had hoped that the information which would be provided
by the Comprehensive Health Planning Council would shed light on that issue.
If, however, the Commission wished to take action on the master plan at the
present time, he felt that it had three alternatives, as follows: 1) to dis-
approve the master plan; 2) to approve the entire master plan; or 3) to approve
only that portion of the master plan that included Phase I of the proposed
medical office building. He stated that it was his opinion that action in
accordance with the third alternative would be most appropriate. With regard
to the conditional use application, the Commission would again have three
alternatives, those being: 1) to disapprove the application; 2) to approve the
application in part to allow construction of only Phase I of the office project
subject to appropriate conditions; or 3) to approve all three phases of the
project subject to appropriate conditions.
Vice President Porter asked if it would be possible for the Commission
to approve the entire master plan and then to approve the Conditional Use
Application in part for construction of only Phase I of the proposed office
project, with the remaining phases of the project to come before the Commission
as conditional use applications in the future. The Director replied in the
affirmative.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -24- JANUARY 3, 1974
Commissioner Ritchie believed that construction of only Phase I of the
office project, consisting of a large building to be located on the south-
west corner of Fulton and Shrader Streets, would completely isolate the
remaining houses in the block, bringing tremendous hardship to the owners
of those properties.
The Director stated that he assumed that the Commission, if it wished
to approve only Phase I of the project, would want to establish conditions
aimed at the protection of the remaining residential buildings in the block.
He remarked that the Commission had taken that approach when approving a
medical office building for the Presbyterian Medical Center.
Commissioner Fleishhacker emphasized that many of the people who had
spoken in opposition to the proposed project had stated that they would have
no objection to expansion of the hospital on property which it already owns;
and he pointed out that approval of only Phase I would, in effect, authorize
construction only on properties which are already owned by the hospital. While
he recognized that the individuals who had taken that position would not be
entirely happy with the results, they had nevertheless, stated that they would
be willing to accept that option. He asked if he was correct in his under-
standing that Phase I would involve only property which is now owned by the
hospital and is vacant. The Director replied in the affirmative and cited
the lot number of the properties involved in Phase I of the project for pur-
poses of clarification.
Vice President Porter asked the hospital's architect if he felt that
conditional use approval of only Phase I at the present time would leave him
with a workable situation.
Mr. Stockwell replied that the plans which he had prepared did contemplate
a three-phase development. However, he called attention to the fact that the
office building constructed in Phase I would have to include ramps to the
parking garage which would be constructed during a later phase. He stated
that the hospital intended to defer construction of the second and third phases
of the project until such time as experience has indicated that there is a
demand for additional space. Approval of the entire long-range master plan
by the Commission would give the hospital an indication of the Commission's
intention regarding the remainder of the project; and the conditional use
procedure would provide the Commission with the means of controlling that
growth. He emphasized, however, that the hospital would find it difficult
to proceed with construction of Phase I of the project unless the Commission
were to approve the entire master plan.
Commissioner Fleishhacker asked how much floor space would be provided
in Phase I of the project. Mr. Stockwell replied that Phase I of the devel-
opment would provide approximately 96,000 gross square feet of floor area.
Commissioner Ritchie asked Mr. Stockwell if he felt that approval of
only Phase I by the Commission could be regarded as good planning. Mr. Stock-
well replied in the negative.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -25- • JANUARY 3, 1974
Commissioner Rueda asked if Phase I had been designed as a unit which
could be operated independently of the remaining two phases. Mr. Stockwell
replied in the affirmative.
Commissioner Ritchie inquired about the timing contemplated for the
two additional phases. Mr. Matthew replied that the hospital expected to
acquire the property needed for completion of those phases of the project
in three to five years.
Commissioner Fleishhacker remarked that the master plan which was before
the Commission also called for future construction of three additional nursing
wings, or hospital buildings, south of the new hospital which is just being
completed .
Mr„ Passmore confirmed that the master plan contained buildings other than
the medical office complex which might be constructed after a long period of
time. The new construction indicated on the master plan included a 53,000
square foot extension of the hospital's ancillary facilities, reconstruction
of the psychiatric facility to provide an increase from 50 to 100 beds,
demolition of the existing south wing of the hospital and reconstruction of
a comparable facility elsewhere on the site, and, finally, construction of
three new nursing buildings on the remaining vacant land when the nursing
building which is just being completed becomes obsolete.
Commissioner Fleishhacker remarked that the letter which the Commission
had received from Dr. Solomon had stated that the new nursing wing which is
just nearing completion may be obsolete within 15 or 20 years. Mr. Passmore
confirmed that the building might become obsolete within that period of time.
Commissioner Ritchie stated that he personally felt that separation of
the project into a three phase arrangement would create a hardship for every-
one; and, therefore, he moved that the master plan, as submitted and revised
by St. Mary's Hospital, be approved in its entirety. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Mellon.
Commissioner Fleishhacker observed that most of the people present in
the audience did not share Commissioner Ritchie's feelings.
Commissioner Rueda stated that he did not feel that approval of the
master plan, as presented to the Commission by the hospital, would be in the
best interests of the City; and, therefore, he could not vote in support of
the motion on the floor. He indicated, however, that he would have been wil-
ling to vote for approval of a master plan affecting only property which is
presently owned by the hospital.
Commissioner Farrell stated that he regarded a "master plan" as a unit
rather than something to be broken up and approved over a period of time.
He remarked that he was familiar with the services which St. Mary's Hospital
has provided for people in the Haight-Ashbury District over the years; and
he indicated that he intended to vote in favor of the hospital's plan to
modernize its facilities so that it could better serve the community.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -26- JANUARY 3, 1974
When the question was called, the Commission voted 4 to 2 to adopt
Resolution No. 7125 and to approve in its entirety the master plan which had
been submitted and revised by St. Mary's Hospital. Commissioners Farrell,
Mellon, Porter, and Ritchie voted "Aye"; Commissioners Fleishhacker and
Rueda voted "No".
Vice President Porter indicated that the next action to be taken by the
Commission would concern the conditional use application.
The Director recommended that the conditional use application be approved
in part for only Phase I of the project consisting of Lots 29A, 36 and a
portion of Lot 37 in Assessors Blocks 1191 and 1192, subject to the following
conditions: 1) Final building plans, consistent with the building scale
indicated on exhibit A and in the Environmental Impact Report for Phase I
to be approved by the Department of City Planning; 2) That final plans should
include substantial landscaping and building facades compatible with adjacent
residential buildings; 3) That traffic access and final design of traffic
aspects of the plans be approved by the Department of City Planning in con-
sultation with the Traffic Engineering Bureau of the Department of Public
Works and the Municipal Railroad; and 4) That the parking facility at Hayes
and Stanyan Streets be designed in a manner which would not distract from the
appearance from Golden Gate Park.
The Director recommended that the remainder of the conditional use
application be disapproved by the Commission or that it be withdrawn by the
applicant. In either event, new conditional use applications would have to
be filed and approved by the Commission before those phases could be under-
taken.
It was moved by Commissioner Fleishhacker and seconded by Commissioner
Rueda that action be taken on the conditional use application in accordance
with the Director's recommendation. When the question was called, Commissioner.'?
Fleishhacker and Rueda voted "Aye"; Commissioners Farrell, Mellon, Porter,
and Ritchie voted "No". Therefore, the motion failed.
Commissioner Fleishhacker remarked that phases II and III of the
proposed development involved properties which are not presently owned by
the hospital; and he asked if the Commission could legally grant conditional
use authorization to the hospital under such circumstances. Mr. Passmore
replied in the affirmative, with one exception. Since the hospital had not
obtained a certificate of necessity to use eminent domain to acquire the
parcel of property on the southeast corner of Fulton and Stanyan Streets
which is owned by Mr. O'Neill, the Commission could not include that property
in its conditional use approval; and he recommended that that property be
removed from the application by the applicant.
Mr. Matthew asked that the property owned by Mr. O'Neill be withdrawn
from the subject application.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -27- JANUARY 3, 1974
Commissioner Fleishhacker , noting that it was apparent that the Commission
wished to approve the conditional use application, as filed and amended by
the applicant, and to authorize construction of the entire project, asked if
the Commission intended to do so without establishing any conditions whatsoever.
He noted that conditions are usually established by the Commission when condi-
tional use applications are approved.
The Director recommended that the Commission postpone final action on the
matter for one week to give the staff of the Department of City Planning an
opportunity to prepare appropriate conditions for consideration by the Commis-
sion at its next meeting.
After further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Ritchie, seconded
by Commissioner Farrell and carried 4 to 2 that the conditional use application,
as submitted and revised by the applicant, be approved in principle and that
the staff be instructed to prepare a draft resolution of approval with appro-
priate conditions for consideration by the Commission at its meeting on January
10, 1974. Commissioners Farrell, Mellon, Porter, and Ritchie voted "Aye";
Commissioners Fleishhacker and Rueda voted "No".
The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynn E. Pio
Secretary
- SAN FRANCISCO
.^CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of the Regular Meeting held Thursday, January 10, 1974.
The City Planning Commission net pursuant to notice on Thursday, January 10,
1974, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 232, City Hall.
PRESENT: Walter S. Newman, President; Mrs. Charles B. Porter, Vice-President;
John C. Farrell, Mortimer Fleishhacker, Thomas J. Mellon, John Ritchie,
and Hector E. Rueda, members of the City Planning Commission.
ABSENT: None.
The staff of the Department of City Planning was represented by Allan B. Jacobs,
Director of Planning; George A. Williams, Assistant Director - Plans and Programs;
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director - Implementation (Zoning Administrator); Robert
Passmore, Planner V (Zoning); Daniel Sullivan, Planner IV (Zoning); Richard Gamble,
Planner IV; Jay Fernandez, Planner II; and Lynn E. Pio, Secretary.
Donald Canter represented the San Francisco Examiner, and Larry Liebert repre-
sented the San Francisco Chronicle.
CURRENT MATTERS
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, informed the Commission that the Fire,
Safety, and Police Committee of the Board of Supervisors would be meeting later in
the afternoon to consider the Transit Preferential Streets program; and he indicated
that he intended to testify before that committee.
The Director, noting that the Commission, on September 6, had adopted a resolu-
tion specifying that a hearing was to be held within 5 months to consider the proposa"
for rezoning portions of Pacific Heights, indicated that that 5-month period will
expire on February 6. Since the Board of Supervisors has not acted on proposed inter,
residential controls, it has been difficult to schedule neighborhood rezoning request
which are now pending; however, if the Board acts on the interim controls on January
21, dates for definite hearings can be set.
The Director distributed copies of a memorandum which he had prepared for the
Board of Supervisors in response to questions which had been raised regarding the
proposed interim residential zoning controls during the interim since the proposal
was presented to the Board on December 26.
George A. Williams, Assistant Director (Plans & Programs), reported on a pro-
posal, recently presented to an Advisory Committee on the Bay Conservation and
Development Commission, for development of an Embarcadero Marina, consisting of a
boatel, restaurants, a passenger terminal and hotel, a commercial amusement area,
and a bird refuge, extending southward from Pier 9 to Pier 24. The Director in-
dicated that other development proposals may be presented involving the same area;
and he advised the Commission that the staff of the Department of City Planning
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -2- JANUARY 10, 1974
will prepare an outline of the steps which any developer would have to take in
relation to the processes and limitations involving the Department of City
Planning and the City Planning Commission.
R73.65 - REVOCABLE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT TO FENCE AND OCCUPY THE
NORTHWEST HALF OF CHANNEL STREET BETWEEN 7TH AND CAROLINA
STREETS FOR PARKING.
Richard Gamble, Planner IV, reported on this matter as follows:
"Golden Gate Disposal Company is building its offices and .
truck maintenance and parking facility on 7th Street between Berry
and Channel Streets. The channel is filled southwest of 7th Street
but was never paved. The 200-foot wide right-of-way has been used
by Greyhound Bus Lines since they were granted a revocable permit
for parking on the southerly half in 1964. Their maintenance shop
is between Channel and Hooper Street.
"The Waste Water Management Master Plan calls for development
of a pumping station next to the channel northeast of 7th and a
sewage retention basin beneath Channel and 7th Streets. When the
basin is constructed, the permits for parking will have to be re-
voked, at least temporarily. The basin structure will support
street or parking use above. At present there is no great need
for a street at this location, but such needs can change in the
future. The policies for conservation of the Urban Design Plan
favor granting revocable permits over vacation of unnecessary
right-of-way.
"The use of City property for private purposes should bring
some c<*npensation to the City; and attitude supported by the
Director of Property. The Board of Supervisors has determined
that property owners using sub-sidewalk space for BART entrances
will pay a rent based upon the fair market value at each location.
Similar rents are anticipated for sub-sidewalk basement use. Be-
fore such rents are charged, however, the Real Estate Department
will have to conduct surveys to determine fair market values.
"Similarly, it would not be possible to charge rent to Golden
Gate Disposal Company without doii g so to Greyhound, and other
street users. Hence the need for a City-wide policy and survey for
values. However, a permit may be granted with the condition that
a rent will be charged when the City adopts the practice on a City-
wide basis."
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, recommended that the proposed revocable
encroachment permit be approved as in conformity with the Master Plan subject to
fufcuite rental charge for private use of public streets. He further recommended
that the Board of Supervisors initiate a policy of collecting rent for private use
of public street areas and that the Board authorize whatever studies and surveys
are needed to implement such a policy.
Minutes of Regular Meeting -3- ■ JANUARY 10, 1974
After discussion it was moved by Commissioner Ritchie, seconded by Commissioner
Porter, and carried unanimously that the Director be authorized to report that the
fencing and utilization for parking of the northwesterly half of Channel Street
between 7th and Carolina Street is in conformity with the Master Plan subject to
future rental charge for private use of public streets. The Commission further
recommended that the Board of Supervisors initiate a policy of collecting rent
for private use of public street areas and that it authorize whatever studies and
surveys are needed to implement such a policy.
CU73.45 - AREA BOUNDED GENERALLY BY FULTON, SHRADER, FELL AND
STANYAN STREETS.
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOP-
MENT FOR ST. MARY'S MEDICAL OFFICES AND HOSPITAL MASTER
PLAN: IN AN R-4 DISTRICT.
(UNDER ADVISEMENT FROM MEETING ON JANUARY 3, 1974)
Robert Passmore, Planner V (Zoning), remarked that the Commission, during its
meeting on January 3, had indicated its intention to approve the subject application
and had requested the staff to prepare a draft resolution of approval with appro-
priate conditions for consideration during today's meeting. He distributed copies
of a draft resolution which he had prepared and summarized the 12 conditions which
it contained.
President Newman asked if the conditions which had been recommended by the
staff would be acceptable to the applicant. Sherwood Stockwell, Architect for
St. Mary's Hospital, replied in the affirmative.
It was moved by Commissioner Ritchie and seconded by Commissioner Porter that
the draft resolution be adopted.
Mr. Fleishhacker noted that he had not voted to approve the proposed project
in principle during the Commission's meeting on January 3: and, since he could not
be in favor of the project even with the conditions which had been recommended by
the staff, he intended to vote "no" on the motion to adopt the draft resolution.
When the question was called, the Commission voted 6 to 1 to adopt the draft
resolution as City Planning Commission Resolution No. 7126 and to approve application
CU73.45 subject to the conditions which had been recommended by the staff of the
Department of City Planning. Commissioners Farrell, Mellon, Newman, Porter, Ritchie
and Rueda voted "Aye"; Commissioner Fleishhacker voted "Nc '.
CU73.62 - 1400 - 19TH AVENUE, SOUTHEAST CORNER OF JUDAH STREET
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO MODERNIZE AND EXPAND A
NON-CONFORMING AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION AND TO EXTEND
THE MAY "2, 1930 TERMINATION DATE TO DECEMBER 31, 1985;
IN AN R-3 DISTRICT.
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director- Implementation (Zoning Administrator),
referred to land use and zoning maps to describe the subject property which has
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -4- JANUARY 10, 1974
approximately 100 feet of frontage on 19th Avenue and 71 feet of frontage on Judah
Street for a total area of 6,944 square feet. He stated that the property is
occupied by a non- conforming Union Oil automobile service station which has a May
2, 1980, expiration date. He stated that the applicant wished to modernize and
expand the service station by the addition of restrooms and additional storage with
dimensions of 8 feet by 12 feet. In addition, the applicant had requested extension
of the May 2, 1980, termination date to December 31, 1985.
Norman Miller, real estate representative for the Union Oil Company of Cali-
fornia, stated that the service station on the subject property has been in existence
since 1938 and that a minor modernization project was carried out in 1956. The
alternations now being proposed were intended to maintain operating officiancy and
to improve the appearance of the facility. He indicated that non-conforming signs
on the site would be replaced with conforming signs; and he advised the Commission
that landscaping on the site would be revitalized. In conclusion, he stated that
a new gasoline tank, having a vapor recovery system, would be installed on the
property, also.
Commissioner Fleishhacker asked for an indication of the amount of investment
being contemplated by the applicant and inquired whether the proposed investment
could be amortized before the May 2, 1980 expiration date.
Mr. Miller estimated that the project would cost approximately 40,000 dollars;
and he indicated that that cost could be amortized in 6 years. In reply to a
further question raised by Commissioner Fleishhacker, Mr. Miller stated that the
installation of the new gasoline tank would make it possible to reduce the number
of deliveries to the station from 4 deliveries a week to only 1 or Ik deliveries
each month.
Commissioner Fleishhacker then asked if the vapor recovery system is being
installed on the new tank voluntarily or because it is required by some other agency.
Mr. Miller replied that all new tanks will be required to have vapor recovery system
in the future.
Mr. Steele recommended that the application be disapproved. He remarked that
the subject property is small and not suitable for expansion of the non-conforming
service station; and he indicated that the need for continuance of the use beyond
May 2, 1980 could not be substantiated at the present time. While the applicant
had contended that the extension of the expiration date would be necessary to make
the renovation of the station economically feasible, that position had just be re-
futed by Mr. Miller in reply to a question raised by Commissioner Fleishhacker. He
pointed out that properties one block to the north at Irving Street are presently-
zoned commercially; and he emphasized that one of the objectives stated in the re-
sidential element of the Master Plan is that conversion of non-residential uses to
residential uses should be encouraged. In conclusion, he stated that the Department
of City Planning is about to begin a study of residential zoning standards which will
include review and recommendations with regard to~non- conforming uses. In con-
clusion, he stated that Judah Street is a transit-preferential street; and he noted
that 19th Avenue is a major thoroughfare.
MINUTES OR REGULAR MEETING -5- JANUARY 10, 1974
Mr. "Miller confirmed that the extension of the termination date was not a
major requirement. He stated that he had been advised by a member of the staff
of the Department of City Planning that no one had yet requested removal of a
termination date from a non-conforming service station; and it had been suggested
that the only way to test the Commission's reaction to such a proposal would be ~
to make a formal request for extension of the termination date. While he acknow-
ledged that other properties in the area zoned for commerical use, he remarked that
they are developed with rather substantial buildings; and, as a result, it would
not be feasible for his company to acquire them. In conclusion, he stated that
operation of the subject service station would continue in any case; and, under the
circumstances, he hoped that the Commission would allow his firm to proceed with the
proposed improvements.
President Newman asked if approval of the modernization project without ex-
tension of the termination date would be acceptable to the applicant. Mr. Miller
replied in the affirmative.
Commissioner Fleishhacker, noting that the Commission, in granting a conditional
use, must determine that there is a need for the use being proposed, asked if there
were any data available to indicate whether the subject service station satisfies
a "neighborhood need or if it caters principally to 19th Avenue traffic. Mr. Miller
replied that it was his belief that the station serves both the neighborhood and
traffic on 19th Avenue; however, he conceded that a majority of the station's
customers probably come from 19th Avenue.
Commissioner Fleishhdcker expected that the Union Oil Company might come before
the "Commission in 1980 requesting an extension of the termination date for the
existing facility; and, if so, one of the criteria which would be important to the
Commission at that time would be whether the station serves a neighborhood need.
Under the circumstances, he suggested that the station should start to keep some
type of a record of the extent to which it fulfills a neighborhood need.
Commissioner Farrell asked how many Union Oil Stations are located on 19th
Avenue between Taraval Street and Lincoln Way. Mr. Miller replied that the subject
facility is the only Union Oil service station located on 19th Avenue.
After further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Ritchie, seconded by
Commissioner Rueda and carried unanimously that the Commission indicate its intention
to approve the proposed expansion subject to conditions but to retain the 1980
termination date; and the staff was instructed to prepare a draft resolution of
approval with appropriate conditions for consideration by the Commission on January
17, 1974.
CU73.63 - 899 NORTH POINT STREET, SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LARKIN STREET.
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR A PARKING LOT FOR APPROXIMATELY
25 AUTOMOBILES TO BE OPERATED IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING
NON-CONFORMING GASOLINE SERVICE STATION: IN AN R-3 DISTRICT.
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director-Implementation (Zoning Administrator),
referred to land use and zoning maps to described the s-ubject property which is a
corner parcel with a 62.5 frontage on Larkin Street and a 87.5 frontage on North-
MINUTES OF. REGULAR MEETING -6- JANUARY 10, 1974
point Street for a total area of 5468.75 square feet. The property is occupied
by a non-conforming automobile service station with a March 10, 1992, expiration
date. In addition, the property has also been used as a parking station in
violation of the City Planning "Code. A cease and desist order was issued on
September 28, 1973; and, subsequently, the subject application had been filed by
the applicant.
William J. Donlon, the applicant, stated that he had operated a parking list
oii the subject site for over 40 years; and, in view of the fact that he had ob-
tained a permit for the use from the Fire Commission 30 years ago, he had not been
aware that the use was not legal. When he had been advised of the violation, he
had filed the subject application, hoping that it would be approved so that he
could continue operation of the parking lot.
Commissioner Rueda asked if plans were available to show how the applicant
proposed to park 25 automobiles on such a small lot. The staff showed him the
plans which had been submitted by the applicant. /S
Commissioner Porter asked if she were correct in her understanding that the
applicant merely intended to continue his present use of the property and that no
expansion of the parking facility was being proposed. Mr. Donlon replied in the
affirmative.
President Newman asked if the applicant had parked automobiles on the street
in the vicinity of the subject site. Mr, Donlon replied that automobiles owned
by'his employees have been parked on the street but not automobiles owned by
customers.
Commissioner Ritchie asked if the nearby Ghiradelli Square Garage is often
filled to capacity. Mr. Donlon replied in the affirmative. He also indicated that
women seem to prefer to park on his lot rather than in that garage. In reply to
further questions raised by Commissioner Ritchie, Mr. Donlon stated that his lot
is open only on Saturday nights during the winter season and on Friday and Saturday
nights during the summer tourist season.
Commissioner Fleishhacker remarked that the Commission had taken a field trip
to the subject property and had noted that a number of cars were parked on the
sidewalk; and he asked if those cars had been parked on the sidewalk by the
applicant. Mr. Donlon replied in the negative. He stated that there is a grocery
store across the street from his property which sells box lunches; and he remarked
that people picking up the lunches often park on the sidewalk. He stated that he
had promised the police that he would not allow people to park on his sidewalk.
Commissioner Fleishhacker then observed that the point where the boundary of
the subject property meets the public sidewalk area was difficult to discern. Mr.
Steele stated that automobiles parked on the property have overlapped the property
line and have extended into the official sidewalk area.
President Newman remarked that almost half of the subject site is developed
with a building; and he indicated that it was difficult for him to understand how
25 automobiles could be parked on the remainder of the lot. He asked if a portion
of the existing building could be removed to provide a more flexible parking
situtation.
/
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -7- JANUARY 10, 1974
Mr. Donlon replied that there are rarely as many as 25 automobiles on the
lot.
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, stated that it would be impossible -
to park 25 automobiles on the property without encroaching into the public right'
of-way.
Tom Curtin, Chairman of the Northpoint Neighborhood Association, read and
submitted the following statement :
"With regard to the application by the operators of the
Shell service station on the S.W. corner of Larkin and North
Point streets, for a permit to park approximately 25 automobiles,
we oppose the issuance of such a permit.
"For a long time there have been multiple violations of
parking laws by these operators, such as, parking cars on the
public sidewalk, (to the hindrance of pedestrians), parking
by the fireplug, parking in the red zone, parking cars for a
fee on Larkin street in spaces which should be available to
public parking and not for private use.
"An unfair practice of these station operators is the
usurping of public parking spaces in the neighborhood to the
inconvenience of residents and visitors. They use public
parking spaces, which should be available on an equal basis
to everyone, to park their trucks and cars as well as their
vehicles under repair and vehicles being parked for a fee.
Spaces on Larkin street have thus been monopolized for many
months and the parking space in front of 875 North Point
street has been unavailable to public parking for a matter of
years .
"We have enclosed some photographs which upon examination
clearly show the violations that are regular practice of this
station. Complaints to the police have been with minimal re-
sult.
"The application is questionable if you consider the size
of the lot and the building and gasoline pumps thereon. Where
are they going to park approximately 25 automobiles without
using the sidewalks and public spaces?
"So, again we state, we are against the issuance of such
a permit as we feel it will lead to a continuance of the parking
problems of all other residents and visitors of this area.
"Without the parking permit the station operators could
park their various vehicles in their own station area thereby
releasing many spaces on the streets. "
MINTUES OF REGULAR MEETING -8- JANUARY 10, 1974
Commissioner Ritchie inquired about the membership of the Northpoint
Neighborhood Association. Mr, Curtin replied that the organization has 18 members;
and he indicated that the organization had been formed because properties in the
area had been excluded from the boundaries of adjacent neighborhood groups-
President Newman asked Mr. Curtin if he objected to use of the subject property
for any parking whatsoever or if he were merely opposed to the applicant's request
for permission to park 25 automobiles on the property. Mr. Curtin replied that
he would have objection to granting authorization to the applicant to store as
many automobiles as the site can legally accommodate.
The Secretary called attention to several letters which had been received in
support of the subject application from firms doing business in the area.
Commissioner Fleishhacker remarked that the Commission had granted authori-
zation for an annex to the Ghiradelli Square Garage; and he asked if the annex
facility is being fully utilized. Daniel Sullivan, Planner IV (Zoning), replied
that the annex building is utilized fully at the height of the tourist season.
Mr. Curtin stated that the garage entered from North Point Street does a
fairly good business; however, he advised the Commission that the garage entered
from Larkin street has never been filled to capacity.
The Director recommended that the application be disapproved. He remarked
that the subject property is small and that the existing improvements occupy
a substantial portion of the site; and he indicated that the parking lot has made
substantial use of the public right-of-way, particularly along Larkin , Street,
where automobiles have intruded into the public street area as well as onto the
sidewalk. He pointed out that other parking is provided in the immediate vicinity
by existing garages; and he pointed out that the non- conforming gasoline service
station with automobile repair facilities results in a considerable commerical
activity on a residentially zoned property which abuts residential uses. However,
if the Commission wished to approve the application, he felt that conditions
should be established setting a maximum of 16 automobiles to be parked on the site,
requiring the removal of curb cuts along the west property line adjacent to the
service station building, requiring installation of a barrier along the Larkin "
Street frontage of the property to define the property "line and to prevent auto-
mobiles from being parked in the sidewalk area, and requiring installation and
maintenance of appropriate landscaping.
President Newman asked the applicant to respond to the Director's recom-
mendation. Mr. Donlon stated that he could abide by the conditions which had been
recommended by the Director; however, he still believed that it would be possible
to accommodate more than 16 automobiles on the site.
The Director stated that it would be difficult to get as many as 16 auto-
mobiles on the site without encroaching into the public right-of-way; however, he
had formulated a layout which he believed would accommodate that many automobiles.
minutes of regular meeting -9- January 10, 1974
After further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Rueda, seconded by
Commissioner Ritchie, and carried unanimously that the Commission indicate its
intention to authorize a parking lot for 16 automobiles on the site subject to
appropriate conditions; and it instructed the staff to prepare a draft resolution
of approval with appropriate conditions for consideration by the Commission during
its meeting on January 17, 1974,
CU73.64 - 1200 COLUMBUS AVENUE, NORTHEAST CORNER OF BAY STREET
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR A PARKING LOT FOR APPROXI-
MATELY 30 AUTOMOBILES; IN A C-2 DISTRICT AND IN THE
NORTHERN WATERFRONT SPECIAL USE DISTRICT NO. 2.
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director - Implementation (Zoning Administrator),
indicated that a letter had been received from David Pansini, representative of the
applicant, stating that he would be unable to attend the Commission's meeting and
requesting that the hearing be postponed until a later date. Mr. Steele recommended
that the hearing be postponed until the Commission's meeting on February 7, 1974.
It was moved by Commissioner Porter, seconded by Commissioner Fleishhacker, and
carried unanimously that hearing of this matter be postponed until the meeting of
February 7, 1974.
CU73.65 - 507-9 LYON STREET, WEST LINE, 100 FEET NORTH OF GROVE STREET.
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR A BOARD AND CARE HOME FOR 12
MENTALLY HANDICAPPED INDIVIDUALS; IN AN R-3 DISTRICT.
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director - Implementation (Zoning Administrator),
referred to land use and zoning maps to describe the subject property which has a
25-foot frontage on Lyon Street and a depth of 106.25 feet for a total area of
2,056.25 square feet. He stated that the property is presently used for a board and
care facility for 12 mentally handicapped individuals ; and the applicant had requested
that the existing use be legalized.
Sadie L. Fortner, the applicant, stated that the facility had been in operation
for six years, housing the same 12 patients. She stated that the facility had passed
fire and health inspections ; and she hoped that the conditional use application
would be approved. In reply to a question raised by Commissioner Fleishhacker, she
stated that some of her patients are young and that soma of them are middle-aged.
Commissioner Farrell asked if the patients are confined to the building. Mrs.
Fortner replied in the negative, indicating that four of the patients spend at least
three days outside of the facility each week.
President Newman asked if residents of the facility had been referred to the
applicant by the State of California. Mrs. Fortner replied that the patients had
beeii referred to her by Sonoma State Hospital; and she indicated that they do not
require constant care.
Mrs. Jimraie Lee Ruff in, 556 Lyon Street, stated that she will soon be retiring
from the nursing profession; and she indicated that she hoped to operate a facility
similar to the one presently under consideration. Therefore, she hoped that the
application would be approved. She informed the Commission that no problems have
developed during the six years that the facility has been in operation.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 10 - JANUARY 10, 1974
Mr. Steele stated that there is an established need for board and care home-
facilities for mentally handicapped and retarded patients in the City; and he re-
marked that the facility could be operated without altering the exterior appearance
of the building. He did not believe that continuance of the occupancy for twelve
persons would have any serious detrimental effect on the residential character of
the neighborhood; and, as a result, he recommended that the application be approved
subject to five specific conditions which were contained in a draft resolution
which he had prepared for consideration by the Commission. After summarizing the
conditions, he recommended that the draft resolution be adopted.
President Newman asked if the conditions which had been recommended by Mr. Steele
would be acceptable to the applicant. Mrs. Fortner replied in the affirmative.
After further discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Mellon, seconded by
Commissioner Fleishhacker, and carried unanimously that the draft resolution be
adopted as City Planning Commission Resolution No. 7127 and that the application be
approved subject to the conditions which had been recommended by Mr. Steele.
CU73.66 - 1772 VALLEJO STREET, NORTH LINE, 67.5 FEET EAST OF GOUGH STREET.
REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS IN RESOLUTION NO. 6659
TO PERMIT THE EXISTING BUILDING TO BE USED FOR PROFESSIONAL
OFFICES OTHER THAN ATTORNEY'S OFFICES; IN AN R-4 DISTRICT.
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director - Implementation (Zoning Administrator),
referred to land use and zoning maps to describe the subject property which is an
irregularly shaped parcel with 106.17 feet of frontage on Vallejo Street and a total
area of approximately 13,473 square feet. The property is zoned R-4; however, under
a rezoning application which is presently pending, the property would be reclassified
to R-2. The property is occupied by the Burr House, which has been officially desig-
nated as a Landmark. In 1970, the Commission approved use of the building for law-
yers ' of f ices ; however, at the present time the building is empty. The applicant had
requested that Condition No. 1 of City Planning Commission Resolution No. 6659 be
modified to permit additional professional offices as defined in Section 205.2 (b)
of the City Planning Code but not to include any medical or dental offices.
Allan B. Axelrod, attorney for the applicant, stated that his client was look-
ing for tenants who would not generate a great deal of traffic flow into the area;
and he hoped that the City Planning Commission would approve the subject applica-
tion to permit the building to be used as offices for professional people other
than attorneys. If additional parking should be needed, the off-street parking
available on the site could be expanded to accommodate 18 automobiles by removing
some old sheds from the property. He stated that he had reviewed the conditions
established by the Commission in Resolution No. 6659 with his client; and his client
had felt that he could conform to those conditions without any difficulty.
Commissioner Fleishhacker, noting that medical and dental offices were specif-
ically excluded from the applicant's request, asked if there were other types of
professional uses which might conceivably generate a considerable amount of traffic
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 11 - JANUARY 10, 1974
Mr. Steele replied that the professional categories referred to in Section 205.2 (b)
of the City Planning Code are limited to dentistry, medicine, psychiatry, chiroprac-
tic, law, architecture or engineering; and, therefore, if the medical professions
were to be excluded, the only offices which would be permitted in the building would
be for lawyers, architects or engineers.
President Newman stated that it seemed to him that the applicant was requesting
permission for greater leeway in choosing professional tenants than would be permittee
by the City Planning Code. Mr. Axelrod confirmed that to be the case; however, he
recognized that it would be necessary to live within the limitations set by the Code.
No one else was present in the audience to speak in favor of or in opposition
to the subject application.
Mr. Steele felt that architects and engineers would not cause undue noise,
activity or traffic. He remarked that the building is large and that it would be
suitable for professional offices; and he noted that sufficient off-street parking
could be provided to meet the parking needs which would be generated by the pro- ~
fessional offices. Therefore, he recommended that the application be approved sub-
ject to six specific conditions which were contained in a draft resolution which he
had prepared for consideration by the Commission.
President Newman asked if the conditions which had been recommended by Mr.
Steele would be acceptable to the applicant. Mr. Axelrod replied in the affirmative.
Commissioner Fleishhacker noted that Condition No. 3 of the draft resolution
specified that operation of the offices should be primarily during normal daylight
business hours ; and he suggested that it might be less confusing to limit use of
the building to specific hours, such as 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Commissioner Porter remarked that lawyers might work till 8:00 or 9:00 p.m.;
and she felt that it would be unfortunate to establish specific hours of operation
for the offices in the building.
After further discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Ritchie, seconded by
Commissioner Porter, and carried unanimously that the draft resolution be adopted
as City Planning Commission Resolution No. 7128 and that the application be approved
subject to the conditions which had been recommended by Mr, Steele.
At 3:00 p.m., President Newman announced a five-minute recess. The Commission
reconvened at 3:05 p.m. and proceeded with hearing of the remainder of the agenda.
CU73.67 - 2680 BRYANT STREET, WEST LINE, 104 FEET NORTH OF 25TH STREET.
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR A BOARD AND-CARE HOME FOR ELEVEN
MENTALLY HANDICAPPED INDIVIDUALS; IN AN R-3 DISTRICT.
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director - Implementation (Zoning Administrator),
referred to land use and zoning maps to describe the subject property which has a
25-foot frontage on Bryant Street and a depth of 100 feet for a total area of 2600
square feet. The property is presently used for a board and care facility for six
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 12 - JANUARY 10, 1974
ambulatory mentally-handicapped adults; and the applicant had requested legalization
of the existing use as a board and care home for eleven mentally-handicapped individ-
uals.
Willie Mae Sanders, the applicant, stated that she had operated the existing
facility since 1965; and she indicated that she was only requesting permission to
continue the same use of the property.
President Newman pointed out that the applicant was also requesting permission
to house 11 individuals in the building rather than the 6 which are being cared
for at the present time, Mrs. Sanders acknowledged that she wished to increase
the number of patients to 6 because of the increased cost of living.
Commissioner Rueda inquired about the number of rooms in the house. Mrs.
Sanders replied that the house has 7 rooms.
Mr. Steele stated that the facility satisfies the State's licensing require-
ments for 11 patients.
The Secretary called attention to a letter which had been received from Helen
Toller, corresponding secretary for the East Mission Improvement Association
Incorporated, which read, in part, as follows:
"Our organization is against this authorization.
"We feel the building will not be adequate to accommodate these people.
"Are there enough rooms? How many lavatories? How many bedrooms?
How large a kitchen and dining area? How large a yard?"
Commissioner Fleishhacker asked if the building does have adequate lavatory,
kitchen, dining, and yard facilities. Mr. Steele replied that he assumed that
the facilities were adequate since State licensing had been obtained by the ap-
plicant; however, he indicated that he had not visited the interior of the build-
ing. He stated that there is a demonstrated need for well managed board and care
facilities for mentally-handicapped and retarded patients; and he remarked that
the proposed use could be accommodated in the existing structure without altering
the exterior appearance of the building. He also believed that continuance of
the use for 11 persons would have no serious detrimental effect on the residential
character of the neighborhood. Therefore, he recommended that the application be
approved subject to five specific conditions which were contained in a draft resolu-
tion which he had prepared for consideration by the Commission.
President Newman asked if the conditions which had been recommended by Mr.
Steele would be acceptable to the applicant. Mrs. Sanders replied in the affirm-
ative.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -13- JANUARY 10, 1974
Commissioner Flelshhacker indicated that he assumed that the Commission's
Conditional Use Authorization would be valid as long as the institution is
licensed by the State; however, if the State license were to be lost, he wondered
if the Conditional Use Authorization would be terminated, also. Mr. Steele
replied that the State would not be able to place patients in the facility if
the facility were to lose Its certification from the State Department of Mental
Hygiene.
After further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Ritchie, seconded by
Commissioner Porter, and carried unanimously that the draft resolution be adopted
as City Planning Commission Resolution No. 7129 and that the application be ap-
proved subject to the conditions which had been recommended by Mr. Steele.
CU73.68 - 6408-24 THIRD STREET, NORTHEAST CORNER OF KEY AVENUE
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR A MORTUARY ESTABLISHMENT; IN
A C-2 DISTRICT.
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director - Implementation (Zoning Administrator),
referred to land use and zoning maps to describe the subject property which is an
irregular corner parcel with 103 feet of frontage on Third Street and 151 feet of
frontage on Key Avenue for a total area of 10,206 square feet. The property is
presently vacant.
The applicant proposed to construct a one-story mortuary consisting of a
200 seat chapel, four slumber rooms, related preparation, administrative, and
service facilities and five off-street parking spaces.
Terry Lofrano, one of the applicants, remarked that the South Bayshore com-
munity has only one mortuary at the present time; and he felt that the new facility
being proposed would provide a service for the neighborhood. He stated that the
proposed building had been designed to have residential overtones. He advised
the Commission that there are two alternate ways to approach on-ramps to the free-
way from the subject property; and, as a result, he felt that the site is well
situated in terms of traffic considerations.
Commissioner Farrell, noting that the applicant had indicated that another
mortuary already exists in the subject neighborhood, asked if he believed that
there will be enough business for both establishments. Mr. Lofrano replied in the
affirmative, indicating that the owners of the subject property had researched
the financial feasibility of the project.
Rev . Bennick, a Methodist minister, felt that the proposed facility would
benefit the community; and he hoped that the application would be approved.
The Secretary called attention to a large number of petitions which had been
signed by members of St. Pauls of the Shipwreck Parish and parents of children
in St. Pauls of the Shipwreck Parish School, indicating that they were opposed
to the subject application for the following reasons:
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -14- JANUARY 10, 1974
"1. The proposed Mortuary site Is directly across busy Third
Street from the following much frequented institutions:
"a. St. Paul of the Shipwreck Parish School with 324
students.
"b. St. Paul of the Shipwreck Parish Church with 1800
members.
"c. St. Paul of the Shipwreck Parish auditorium and gymna-
sium which is constantly being used for athletic,
recreational, social and cultural activities.
"Already, as of now traffic down Third Street as it comes
down from the nearby Bayshore Freeway is to« heavy for the safety
of the school children. The future flow of traffic across the
street from funeral processions with many cars in them would
congest traffic to a dangerous point.
"2. As of now, it is already difficult for parents of school
children, of children using the auditorium and gymnasium, and for
people attending Church services and gatherings to find adequate
parking space for their automobiles when coming to and going from
school activities and services. This shortage of parking space is
greatly increased during the baseball and football seasons during
which it is forbidden to park at certain times on most of our neigh-
borhood streets because of stadium traffic. To further lessen the
opportunity to park by additional need for parking space by future
Mortuary patrons would constitute a serious inconvenience and a
hazard for the children, residents of the area and members of the
Parish.
"3. We understand that the Bayview Mortuary has proposed to
build a Mortuary on Meade and Third Street about two blocks west
of the school and Church location. We have no objections to the
Bayview Mortuary site as it would not create the traffic and parking
problems that the other proposed Mortuary would."
Commissioner Mellon asked if the Pastor of St. Paul of the Shipwreck
Parish was opposed to the subject application. A member of the audience
indicated that the Pastor was not present but stated that he had organized
the signing of the petitions.
President Newman asked if the members of the Parish would prefer that
the subject property be developed as a parking lot. The spokesman for the
Parish replied that residential development of the property would be pref-
erable.
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, pointed out that the subject
property is zoned for commercial use.
• . .
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -15- JANUARY 10, 1974
Lorenzo J. Lewis, owner of the subject property, stated that most of
the people using the facilities at the proposed mortuary would park on
Key Street rather than on Third Street; and, under the circumstances, he
thought it was unlikely that the activities of the mortuary would interfere
with the church or the school on the opposite side of Third Street. He
believed that he could convince the members of the Parish that he was cor-
rect if he could be given an opportunity to discuss the matter with them.
Commissioner Rueda asked when services would be held at the proposed
mortuary. Mr. Lewis replied that services would be held between 9:00 a.m.
and 2:00 p.m.
In addition, visiting hours would be held in the evening. He stated
that he and his associates had been very concerned about providing ample
parking space for their clientele; and they were convinced that no parking
problems would arise.
Commissioner Fleishhacker observed that the five off-street parking
spaces being proposed by the applicant would probably not be sufficient to
serve the needs of the facility's clientele; and, therefore, he gathered
that the applicants intended to use the dead-end portion of Key Street
adjacent to their property for customer parking. That being the case, he
asked if that portion of Key Street is over-parked at the present time.
Mr. Lewis stated that he was not aware of any parking problems on the
dead-end portion of Key Street at the present time. He estimated that the
dead-end portion of the street could accommodate 25 diagonally parked auto-
mobiles; and, if the automobiles were to be parked parallel (sic), he expected
that twice as many vehicles could be accommodated. He also advised the
Commission that police escorts would be on hand to alleviate traffic conges-
tion whenever services are held in the mortuary chapel.
Commissioner Fleishhacker asked how many people would be likely to be
on the premises at any one time. Mr. Lewis replied that the proposed chapel
would seat between 150 and 200 people. However, since services of that size
are usually held in churches, he estimated that the average gathering at the
mortuary would not exceed a range of 75 to 150 people.
Rev. Bennick informed the Commission that a black Baptist Church with
a large membership is located in the vicinity of the subject site; and,
unlike the members of St. Paul of the Shipwreck Parish, the members of the
Baptist Church had no objection to the applicant's proposal.
Mrs. Mosey, a member of St. Paul of the Shipwreck Parish, stated that
parents picking up their children from St. Paul of the Shipwreck Parish
School have had difficulty finding a place to park. While Key Avenue may
be wide, the stub-end portion is not sufficiently long to accommodate a very
large number of automobiles. She stated that members of the community had
•»ot been consulted about the proposed use; and many of the people with whom
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -16- JANUARY 10, 1974
she had discussed the project had Indicated their opposition to the
application. Under the circumstances, she felt that it would be advisable
for the applicant to work with the residents of the neighborhood to determine
whether they really want a new mortuary rather than to impose the proposed
facility on them. In conclusion, she advised the Commission that traffic
and parking problems are particularly severe in the subject neighborhood
whenever baseball or football games are held at Candlestick Park. Then,
in reply to a question raised by Commissioner Rueda, she stated that she
delivers her child at 8:30 in the morning and that she picks the child up
at 2;45 p.m. or at an earlier hour.
Mrs Neeley, one of the applicants, stated that the backers of the new
mortuary which had been proposed at Meade Avenue and 3rd Street had become
interested in the subject property; however, by the time that they had be-
come interested in the site, it had already been purchased by the corporation
of which she is a member. She assured the Commission that the proposed facil-
ity would be operated with dignity and refinement at all times.
The architect for the applicant displayed photographs which he had taken
of the area at mid-morning; and he pointed out that the photographs did not
reflect any parking problem in the area.
The Director stated that he was surprised that such a large number of
people had signed petitions in opposition to the subject application; and
he advised the Commission that the staff at the Department of City Planning
had advised the Bayview Hunters Point Model Neighborhood Commission of the
application and had not received a response from that agency. He remarked
that children attending the parish school are actually delivered and picked
up at Key Avenue and Jennings Street; and he indicated that there appears
to be no major traffic problem at that point. He stated that the subject
neighborhood has a need for modern mortuary services; and he noted that the
subject property is sufficiently isolated from residential uses so that the
proposed use would not be detrimental to them. He stated that the design
and layout of the proposed building is such that certain less desirable
aspects of the mortuary business would be well screened from public view;
and he believed that the traffic activity resulting from the use would create
no conflicts which would affect traffic flow in the vicinity. Furthermore,
the site itself is protected from Third Street traffic exiting from the free-
way. Under the circumstances, he recommended that the application be ap-
proved subject to five specific conditions which were contained in a draft
resolution of approval which he had prepared for consideration by the Com-
mission. After summarizing the conditions, he recommended that the draft
resolution be adopted by the Commission.
President Newman asked if the conditions which had been recommended
by the Director would be acceptable to the applicant. Mr. Lofrano replied
in the affirmative.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -17- JANUARY 10, 1974
After further discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Porter, seconded
by Commissioner Mellon, and carried unanimously that the draft resolution
be adopted as City Planning Commission Resolution No. 7130 and that the
application be approved subject to the conditions which had been recommended
by the Director.
CU73.70 - 101, 109 and 115 SHIELDS STREET, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
BRIGHT STREET.
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR A NURSERY SCHOOL - CHILD
CARE CENTER; IN AN R-l DISTRICT.
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director - Implementation (Zoning Admin-
istrator), referred to land use and zoning maps to describe the subject
property which consists of three lots having frontages of 75 feet on both
Shields and Bright Streets for a total area of 5625 square feet. He stated
that the applicant proposed to use the two-story residence at 115 Shields
Street as a Day Care Center for 20 children and as offices for Ingleside
Community Children's Theatre. In addition, the applicant proposed to use
the rear yards of the two properties immediately to the east for out-door
play area. The residential buildings at 101 and 109 Shields Street would
remain in residential use.
Evelyn Cox, Executive Director of the Day Care Center, noted that the
parents of many of the children attending the Center were present in the
audience; and she indicated that there was a great deal of support for the
proposed facility. She stated that the building at 115 Shields Street is
being modified to meet State standards; and she informed the Commission
that the chiTdren at the center are provided with a wide range of services
including vaccination shots, psychiatric services, legal services and free
food provided by the Economic Opportunity Council. Therefore, she asked
the Commission to regard the proposed facility as something more than just
an ordinary child care center. She stated that there are adequate on-street
parking spaces available in the area; and she indicated that there are very
few times when more than one automobile is delivering or picking up children
at the Day Care Center at any one time. Since most of the people residing
in the neighborhood work during the day, she believed that the Center would
have no disruptive effect on the life of the neighborhood.
Commissioner Fleishhacker asked if the entrance to the Child Care Center
would be on Bright Street or Shields Street or if entrances would be available
on both streets. Miss Cox replied that the entrance to the facility would
be on Shields Street; however, since fire safety regulations require that
two exits be available, a second exit would be provided on Bright Street.
President Newman asked for a show of hands from members of the audience
who were present in support of the subject application. Most of the people
in the audience responded.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -18- JANUARY 10, 1974
Pat Davis, a working parent with one child attending the Child Care
Center, stated that she had found the facility to be very beneficial; and
she hoped that the subject application would be approved.
Mrs. Ferrell stated that a number of residents on the 100 block of
Shields Street had signed a petition in opposition to the subject application
based on traffic and parking considerations.
Paul Henderson, 139 Shields Street, pointed out that Shields Street is
very narrow; and, if automobiles are parked on both sides of the street, it
is difficult for an automobile, let alone a fire engine, to get through the
street. He stated that he was opposed to the subject application.
Vermeil Hines, 114 Shields Street, stated that she had been a resident
of the neighborhood since 1955. She and her husband had purchased their
property in an R-l district; and they had not expected that commercial activ-
ities of the type being proposed would be permitted in the area. She believed
that approval of the subject application would endanger the investment which
she had made in residential property; and she felt that streets in the area
are too narrow to accommodate the type of traffic which would be generated
by the proposed facility. She, also, urged that the application be disapproved,
Linda Jackson stated that her daughter had attended the Child Care Center
for four years; and, during that time, she had not been aware that the facility
had created any traffic problems. She stated that children attending the
center receive individualized training; and she was of the opinion that the
type of facility proposed is really needed in the area. She stated that she
lives on the corner of Shields and Bright Streets. In reply to a question
raised by President Newman as to whether the facility had been in operation
on the subject property for four years, Mrs. Jackson replied in the negative
and indicated that her daughter had previously attended the center when it
was housed on Vernon Street.
Commissioner Fleishhacker asked how long the center had been located on
Shields Street.
Miss Cox stated that the center had been re-located from Vernon Street
to Shields Street in June, 1973, because the previous landlord had raised
the rent to $550 a month. She stated that the center is owned by the parents
of children who are enrolled in the facility; and she indicated that it is
not a profit-making organization.
Commissioner Rueda asked what age group is handled by the center. Miss
Cox replied that the age of children attending the center ranges from 2%
years to 6 years.
President Newman, noting that the case report which had been prepared
by the staff of the Department of City Planning stated that the Commission,
during the past four years, had approved three child-care centers within
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
-19- JANUARY 10, 1974
five blocks of the subject property, asked if there is really a need for
the proposed facility.
Miss Cox replied that the other facilities charge up to $150 per month
per child whereas the facility which she operates charges only $85 per month
per child; and she indicated that parents who had enrolled their children
in her facility could not afford to pay the fees charged by the other facilities
Commissioner Ritchie remarked that the Commission had received a petition
signed by residents of the OMI community which stated that signators of the
petition had received empty envelopes from the City Planning Department; and
he asked if someone could explain what had happened.
A member of the audience who had submitted the petition stated that many
of the property owners on Shields Street had received empty envelopes which
were supposed to have contained notices of the Commission's hearing on the
subject conditional use application. She also remarked that the notices which
had been received by some of the property owners had not made it clear that
the rear yards at 101 and 109 Shields Street would be used as a play area for
children attending the school.
Mr. Steele confirmed that notices had apparently not been included in
a number of the envelopes which had been sent to owners of property within
a 300- foot radius of the subject site.
President Newman read the following letter which had been received from
Perker L. Meeks Jr., President of the OMI Community Association:
"The OMI Community Association has been informed that a hearing is
scheduled on the 10th day of January, 1974 at 3:00 P.M. involving the
conditional use of properties at 101, 109, and 115 Shields Street for
a Nursery School - Childcare Center.
"We have been informed that the residents in the immediate vicinity
of the above mentioned area did not receive proper notification of the
proposed change in use of the property. Many of the residents received
empty envelopes from the Planning Department.
"By unanimous vote of the Board of Directors of the OMI Community
Association, it was resolved that the City Planning Commission post-
pone its decision on the proposed change until the residents of the
mentioned area have received proper notification of the proposed change
and have had an open hearing on the proposal.
"It should be emphasized that we are not opposing or supporting the
proposed change. We are opposed to any action being taken until such
time as the residents have been properly notified of the proposal.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -20- JANUARY 10, 1974
"We respectfully request your cooperation in facilitating community
involvement in proposed changes in the make up of the community that may
affect their immediate environment.1'
Mr. Steele stated that it would be possible for the staff of the
Department of City Planning to mail new notices to properties within a 300
foot radius of the subject property if the Commission were to postpone action
on the application. However, he indicated that the notice had appeared in
the official advertising newspaper and that it had been posted in the neighbor-
hood; and, in view of the petitions which had been received and in view of the
fact that residents of the neighborhood were present to speak in opposition
to the application, he felt that it was apparent that people had, in fact,
been made aware that the matter would be heard by the Commission. Neverthe-
less, if the Commission wished to postpone action on the matter, he recommended
that the matter be taken under advisement until the Commission's meeting on
February 7, 1974.
Miss Cox stated that it had come to her attention that some of the
residents of the neighborhood had not been advised of the Commission's hearing.
As a result, she had mailed letters to residents of the neighborhood advising
them of the hearing and advising them to attend a meeting at which Mr. Sullivan
of the Department of City Planning was to be present to explain the application;
and, only five of the residents of the neighborhood had attended the meeting.
She believed that residents of the neighborhood had been given adequate notice
of the Commission's hearing; and, in view of the fact that funding for the
Child Care Center from such sources as the Bay Area Crusade might be jeopardized
if approval of the application were to be delayed, she hoped that the Commis-
sion would not approve the request for postponement.
Commissioner Fleishhacker , noting that Mr. Steele had previously recom-
mended that action on the subject application might be postponed for one month
if the Commission so desired, asked if it would be possible to re-schedule
the matter for action in two weeks.
Miss Cox stated that she would appreciate it if the postponement could
be limited to no more than one week.
Mr. Steele remarked that even though empty envelopes might have been
mailed by the Department of City Planning, notice of the hearing was given
to residents of the area by the applicant. There seemed to be a great deal
of knowledge of the application in the neighborhood; and, in view of the fact
that a number of residents of the block immediately affected were present in
the meeting room, he felt that it should not be necessary for the staff to
mail new notices to property owners within a three-hundred foot radius of the
property. Therefore, a one month postponement would not be necessary.
Toby Yarborough, representing the Ocean View, stated that he had provided
assistance to the Child Care Center since it was located on Vernon Street;
and he was confident that the people who had spoken in opposition to the ap-
plication would withdraw their opposition if they would stop to think of the
children involved and of the fact that the Child Care Center is teaching them
to become productive citizens.
'
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -21- JANUARY 10, 1974
Commissioner Porter, noting that the staff of the Department of City
Planning must have had an opportunity to gauge the effect of the Child Care
Center on the subject neighborhood since it has been in existence for six
months, stated that she would like to hear the staff's recommendation on the
application at the present time.
Mr. Steele emphasized that the property is located in a quiet residential
neighborhood; and he felt that the proposed use would generate noise and
activity which would be detrimental to the area. He noted that the Commission,
during the past four years, had authorized three child centers within five
blocks of the subject property; and he remarked that the applicant had not
demonstrated a public need for an additional child care center in the neighbor-
hood. Therefore, he recommended that the application be disapproved. In
conclusion, he noted that the Commission had approved a conditional use applica-
tion for the same organization when it was located on Vernon Street.
A resident of 426 Bright Street asked if the proposed facility would
involve the acquisition of his property. President Newman replied in the
negative, indicating that the gentleman had received a notice of the Commission's
hearing because he owns property within a 300-foot radius of the site under
consideration.
James Davis, a working parent, stated that many small children reside
in the subject neighborhood; and, therefore, he took issue with Mr. Steele's
description of the area as "quiet residential neighborhood." He also remarked
that he had never 6een more than 3 or 4 cars at the Child Care Center at any
one time. He advised the Commission that the Child Care Center is operated
in a very professional manner; and he was sorry that residents of the neighbor-
hood, who appeared to be the same type of people as himself, were opposed to
the application.
Commissioner Mellon remarked that it appeared to him that the applicant
was merely seeking authorization for a replacement of the Child Care Center
previously authorized by the Commission on Vernon Street in the same general
neighborhood.
Robert Easley, 126 Shields Street, advised the Commission that many small
children live in the subject block; and he indicated that he had often found
it difficult to get into his garage because of the children playing in the
street. Under the circumstances, he felt that no additional children should
be introduced into the area by a non-residential facility such as the proposed
Child Care Center.
Commissioner Porter asked if the multiplicity of children in the street
had occurred since the school began operation at its present location. Mr.
Easley replied in the negative, indicating that the neighborhood had always
experienced that problem. However, he remarked that an effort is being made
to improve the situation.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -22- JANUARY 10, 1974
Miss Cox informed the Commission that children from the Center do not
play in the street.
Commissioner Rueda remarked that the subject facility seemed to be a
well-run child-care center. Yet, at the same time, the applicant's proposal
seemed to have major faults, not the least which was the fact that the center
would make use of three separate parcels of property, any one of which might
be sold at any time, thus putting the facility in the position of having to
look for another site. Under the circumstances, he felt that an effort should
be made to find better quarters for the facility; and, therefore, he moved
that this matter be taken under advisement for one week so that steps could
be taken toward that end.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Fleishhacker. He remarked that
members of the Commission had taken a field trip to the subject property; and
he indicated that they had been troubled by the fact that the proposal involved
three separate parcels of property whereas most child care centers considered
by the Commission in the past had involved only single parcels of property
which were usually large In size. He also noted that the Commission, in approv-
ing a conditional use application, must establish that the facility proposed
would be a necessary and desirable addition to the neighborhood in which it
would be located and that it would not have a disruptive effect on living
conditions or traffic patterns in the neighborhood; and he remarked that he,
personally, would find it difficult to make those determinations in the present
case. The properties involved are quite small and are located close together;
and, particularly in the case of rain, he felt that the children would have
to be "cooped up" in fairly tight quarters. It also seemed to him that the
subject neighborhood is not the type of neighborhood which lends itself well
to the introduction of an institution of the sort being proposed; and he indic-
ated that he regarded it as one of the best maintained residential neighbor-
hoods in San Francisco. Despite those considerations, the actual facility
under consideration seemed to be well-run; and, if the application should be
disapproved by the Commission, he believed that that action would be taken not
on the basis that the institution being proposed is bad but that it would not
be an appropriate use in the subject neighborhood.
When the question was called, the Commission voted unanimously to take
this matter under advisement until the meeting of January 17, 1974.
CU73.71 - 1001 CALIFORNIA STREET, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MASON STREET.
REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF STIPULATIONS ESTABLISHED BY
RESOLUTION NO. 5255 TO ALLOW EXTERIOR ALTERATION OF THE
EXISTING BUILDING BY ATTACHING A MURAL WHICH INCORPORATES A
SIGN WITH AN AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 90 SQUARE FEET; IN AN
R-5 DISTRICT.
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director - Implementation (Zoning Admin-
istrator), referred to land use and zoning maps to describe the subject
property which has 77.5 feet frontage on California Street and 60 feet
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -23- JANUARY 10, 1974
frontage on Mason Street for a total area of 4650 square feet. The property
is presently developed with a 7-story reinforced concrete building which
houses 12 apartments and Alexis' Restaurant. The restaurant is a non-conform-
ing use which is not subject to expiration. The applicant had requested
modification of stipulations contained in City Planning Commission Resolution
No. 5255 to allow exterior alteration of the building by attaching a mural
consisting of three panels with the central panel incorporating an identifica-
tion of the restaurant. In conclusion, he displayed a colored sketch of the
mural which had been submitted by the applicant.
Commissioner Porter, noting that the restaurant is presently identified
by a bronze plaque on the front of the building, inquired about the size of
that plaque. Mr. Steele replied that the plaque probably has an area of less
than two square feet.
Commissioner Ritchie remarked that the proposed mural appeared to him
to be a work of art rather than a sign. Mr. Steele replied that the two end
panels might be considered to be works of art; however, since the central
panel incorporates the name of Alexis* Restaurant, it would legally be defined
as a "sign."
The applicant was not present in the meeting room.
President Newman read the following letter which had been received from
C. Edward Head, President of the Nob Hill Association:
"We wish to advise you that this Association is opposed
to the proposed mural and sign on the Mason Street side of
the building at 1001 California Street.
"Our reasons are as follows:
"1. We feel that use of signs on Nob Hill,
particularly on the square itself, should
be held at an absolute minimum.
"2. The proposed mural and sign would cover a
very large area of the building and would
possibly over-power everything else in the area.
"3. From the entrance to the Mark Hopkins Hotel,
it would have a billboard effect.
"4. The restaurant involved does not cater tc
'walk-in' business and has operated success-
fully on Nob Hill for many years without
benefit of large conspicuous outside advertising.
"Your consideration would be appreciated."
-
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -24- JANUARY 10, 1974
Mr. Head, who was present in the audience, submitted photographs of
the subject building to the Commission, indicating where the three panels
of the proposed mural where to be placed.
Commissioner Fleishhacker, noting that the mural could no longer be
considered to be a sign if the word "Alexis" were to be removed from the
central panel, asked if Mr. Head would still object to the applicant's
proposal even if that word were to be removed.
Mr. Head replied in the affirmative, indicating that he considered
the entire mural to be a "sign" since it would be composed of bright colors
which would not be compatible with the neighborhood.
Commissioner Rueda stated that he thought that the proposed mural would
be more attractive than the present facade of the building which has three
bays which apparently used to frame windows which have now been covered.
Mr. Head stated that he did not agree with Commissioner Rueda. He
indicated that he had passed by the building for the last 20 years and had
never even noticed the wall; however, if the mural were to be installed, it
would be impossible not to notice the wall in the future.
Commissioner Fleishhacker remarked that Mr. Head would probably have
had no opportunity to object to the mural if the central panel had not been
considered to be a sign because of the inclusion of the word "Alexis."
Mr. Steele stated that the resolution which had been adopted by the
Commission in May, 1960, had stipulated that no exterior alterations were
to be made to the building with the exception of the construction of two
additional entrances; and, as a result, he believed that the Commission would
have jurisdiction over the murals whether they were to be regarded as an
ornamental feature or as a sign.
Commissioner Porter stated that she clearly remembered that there had
been a great deal of opposition to the original proposal to install Alexis'
Restaurant in the subject building; and, in approving that application, the
Commission had stipulated that the sign identifying the restaurant should be
of a minimum size in order to preserve the residential character of the neigh-
borhood. She asked if the Mark Hopkins Hotel had made any comments regarding
the present application.
President Newman stated that the Mark Hopkins Hotel was represented by
the Nob Hill Association.
Commissioner Ritchie noted that the mural could be considered to be a
work of art rather than a sign if the word Alexis' were to be removed; and,
under the circumstances, he wondered if the mural would have to be reviewed
and approved by the Art Commission. Commissioner Porter replied in the
negative, remarking that the subject building is not publicly-owned.
:
■
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -25- JANUARY 10, 1974
Commissioner Ritchie then remarked that it might be possible f«r the
restaurant to restore the windows on the east wall of the building and to
hang a sign with the restaurant's name behind the windows; and he asked if
the Commission would have any jurisdiction over the signs under these
circumstances. Mr. Steele replied that the Department of City Planning
would have no jurisdiction over signs hung within the building.
Commissioner Fleishhacker remarked that installation of plate glass
windows on the east wall would constitute a major alteration of the exterior
of the building; and, under the circumstances, he believed that such a
proposal would be subject to review by the Commission under the terms of
the resolution adopted in 1960.
Commissioner Porter stated that the Commission, in approving the pre-
vious application, had expected that the restaurant would be used by residents
of the apartment building as well as by outsiders; and it had intended that
the restaurant should not be identified in any way other than by the bronze
plaque which was approved at that time.
President Newman asked how long the windows on the east wall of the
building had been closed. Mr. Steele replied that they had been cl«sed for
at least 14 years.
President Newman then asked if the restaurant is under new ownership.
Mr. Steele replied in the affirmative.
President Newman then asked for Mr. Steele's recommendation on the
application.
Mr. Steele remarked that the proposed mural would function, in part,
as an identifying sign for the non-conforming restaurant; and he noted that
the mural would be visually prominent when viewed from adjacent properties
and streets. In his opinion, the mural would not be in keeping with the
building upon which it would be located or with other nearby developments
on Nob Hill; and it seemed to him that the bronze plaque on the California
Street frontage of the building already provides appropriate identification
for the restaurant. He also noted that the proposal had evoked substantial
opposition from nearby residents and property owners. Under the circumstances,
he recommended that the application be disapproved.
Commissioner Fleishhacker, indicating that he was surprised that the
applicant was not present, asked if he had been advised of the Commission's
hearing. Mr. Steele replied in the affirmative.
Commissioner Fleishhacker then stated that he felt that it should be
made clear to the applicant that any proposal for exteri»r alteration of
the building would be subject to review and approval by the City Planning
Commission. Mr. Steele stated that the applicant had already been made aware
of that fact.
J
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -26- JANUARY 10, 1974
After further discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Porter, seconded
by Commissioner Mellon, and carried unanimously that Resolution No. 7131 be
adopted and that Application No. CU73.71 be disapproved.
CU73.72 - 4686 - 18th STREET, NORTH LINE, 60.3 FEET EAST OF MARKET
STREET.
REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF THE MAY 2, 1980 EXPIRATION DATE
WHICH PRESENTLY APPLIES TO THE EXISTING NON- CONFORMING USE,
A GROCERY STORE; IN AN R-3 DISTRICT.
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director - Implementation (Zoning Admin-
istrator), referred to land use and zoning maps to describe the subject
property which is an irregular through lot to Market Street with an area
of approximately 1197 square feet. The property has a 25 -foot frontage on
18th Street and an average depth of 47.8 feet. The property is occupied by
a non-conforming grocery store; and the applicant had requested that the
May 2, 1980, expiration date which applies to the non-conforming use be
removed .
Salem Mufarreh, the applicant, submitted a petition which had been
signed by approximately 200 people in support of his application. He stated
that another grocery store does exist two blocks down the hill to the east
at the corner of 18th and Douglass Streets; however, he remarked that it is
subject to a 1980 termination date, also. At that time, the nearest grocery
store would be on Castro Street, which is five blocks away. He stated that
he had originally intended to request the Commission to reclassify the prop-
erty for commercial use; however, since it appeared that it would be difficult
to obtain approval of such an application, he had decided to submit a condi-
tional use application requesting removal of the termination date instead.
He stated that he would like to have his sign repainted; and he did not feel
that would be fair for the Commission to say that the sign could not be re-
placed if it were to be taken down. He also indicated that he would object
to having limitations placed on his hours of operation.
Beryl Trimble stated she had lived in her present home for 61 years; and
she advised the Commission that a lot of older people, most of whom do not
drive automobiles, live in the neighborhood. As a result, the subject store,
which began operation just after World War I, serves as a convenience to
residents of the neighborhood who would find it difficult to walk down the
hill toDouglass Street or Castro Street to buy groceries.
Ann O'Connor stated that she had resided in the neighborhood for 29 years;
and she indicated that one of her reasons for purchasing property in the area
originally was the conveniences which the area offered, including the grocery
store. She felt that it would be very inconvenient to have the grocery store
go out of business.
No one else was present to speak in favor of or in opposition to the
subject application.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -27- JANUARY 10, 1974
Mr. Steele stated that the subject grocery store provides a needed
and desirable service for residents of the immediate surrounding residential
community; and he indicated that the operation of the store had not resulted
in traffic congestion, undue noise, or other detrimental conditions. He
also thought that it is compatible with surrounding residential development.
Therefore, he recommended that the application be approved subject to four
specific conditions which were contained in a draft resolution which he had
prepared for consideration by the Commission. After summarizing and comment-
ing on the conditions, he recommended that the draft resolution be adopted.
Commissioner Porter, noting that Condition No. 2 of the draft resolution
specified that the hours of operation of the grocery store should be limited
from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., stated that she did not recall that the Com-
mission had previously limited the hours of operation of a grocery store; and
she indicated that she would be opposed to such a restriction. If left un-
adjusted, she had no doubt that the hours of operation would automatically
be adjusted to serve the convenience of the neighborhood.
Commissioner Ritchie indicated that he agreed with Commissioner Porter.
Commissioner Fleishhacker, noting that Condition No. 1 of the draft
resolution grant authorization only for a "grocery store", asked if the ap-
plicant would be prohibited from selling such items as golf club or lawnmowers.
Mr. Steele replied that the applicant would be permitted to sell such items
as long as groceries continued to be the principal products sold in the market.
Commissioner Porter stated that she was convinced that there is a
fundamental sense to zoning; and she did not believe that a hardware store
or other types of commercial enterprise would be successful on the subject
property.
President Newman asked Mr. Steele to comment on the applicant's statement
regarding replacement of the sign on the building. Mr. Steele replied that
the applicant would be permitted to replace the existing sign with a conform-
ing sign.
Mr. Mufarreh, indicating that he was concerned about the possibility
that he might not be permitted to sell electrical goods if only a "grocery
store" were being authorized by the Commission, stated that he would prefer
that the authorization be for a "retail" store.
Commissioner Fleishhacker asked the applicant if he would be satisfied
if he were permitted to sell the same types of goods as are sold at the average
Safeway market. Mr. Mufarreh replied in the affirmative. Mr. Steele stated
that the wording of the draft resolution would permit the applicant to handle
the same range of goods as are handled by a Safeway market.
..
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -28- JANUARY 10, 1974
After further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Ritchie and
seconded by Commissioner Mellon that the second condition of the draft
resolution, limiting the hours of operation of the grocery store, be deleted
and that the amended draft resolution be adopted as City Planning Commission
Resolution No. 7132.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynn E. Pio
Secretary
a£$ tio
i/n/iq
DOCUMENTS
FFB 1 9 :
,_£AN FRANCISCO
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of the Regular Meeting held on Thursday, January 17, 1974.
The City Planning Commission met pursuant to notice on Thursday,
January 17, 1974, at 2:15 p.m. in the meeting room at 100 Larkin Street.
PRESENT: Walter S. Nevman, President; Mrs. Charles B. Porter,
Vice President; John C. Farrell, Mortimer Fleishhacker,
Thomas G. Miller, and John Ritchie, members of the City
Planning Commission.
ABSENT: Hector E. Rueda, member of the City Planning Commission.
The staff of the Department of City Planning was represented by Allan
B. Jacobs, Director of Planning; R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director -
Implementation (Zoning Administrator), Robert Passmore, Planner V (Zoning);
Daniel Sullivan, Planner IV; Marie Zeller, Planner Ill-Administrative; Carl
Ness, Planner II; Nathaniel Taylor; Planner II; and Lynn E. Pio, Secretary.
Larry Liebert represented the San Francisco Chronicle; Donald Canter
represented the San Francisco Examiner.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved by Commissioner Fleishhacker, seconded by Commissioner
Porter, and carried unanimously that the minutes of the meetings of November
15 and December 20, 1973, be approved as submitted.
CURRENT MATTERS
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, distributed copies of the 1973
GraidJury's Report on the Department of City Planning.
The Director continued his report to the Commission, as follows:
"The Board of Supervisors and the Landmarks Preservation
Advisory Board have been petitioned by the Citizens to Preserve
the City of Paris to designate the City of Paris building as a
landmark.
"I have received a letter from Mr. Dolan, Clerk of the Board,
indicating that the Planning, Housing and Development Committee
requests this department to render a report and recommendations
on this designation together with implementing legislation if
appropriate.
.
■
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 2 - JANUARY 17, 1974
"I intend to write to Mr. Dolan telling him that this
proposed designation will follow the regular procedures for
establishing landmarks, that is advisory review and report
with recommendations on the designation by the Landmarks
Board to the City Planning Commission that would be followed
by appropriate action by the City Planning Commission at an
advertised public hearing. The Commission's action then
would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for disposi-
tion.
"Mrs. Piatt received the same letter as I did and at
yesterday's Landmarks Board meeting the Board's staff was
requested to begin its investigation work."
Commissioner Porter asked if the cornice had been removed from the
City of Paris building under the direction of another City department.
After the Director stated he believed so, Commissioner Porter remarked
that the building will be less likely to qualify as a landmark following
the removal of such ornamentation.
Commissioner Fleishhacker felt that the ordinance requiring the removal
of cornices which may be a hazard in case of an earthquake should apply to
landmark buildings also since the principal objective of that ordinance is
safety.
At this point of the proceedings, Commissioner Ritchie arrived in the
meeting room and assumed his seat at the Commission table.
The Director reminded the Commission that the Board of Supervisors,
meeting next Monday, will consider the Commission's recommendation for
enactment on Interim Residential Zoning Controls.
The Director's next statement read as follows:
"Franklin Hospital has informed us that it is preparing
conditional use application and accompanying environmental impact
report for four major building additions to the Ralph K. Davies
Medical Center. These additions are 1) an executive office
floor on top of the present acute care hospital building, the
roof of which would be used as a helistop (this helistop pro-
posal replaces an earlier proposal for such a facility at ground
level along 14th Street), 2) two additional medical office
floors on top of the existing medical office building at Castro
and Duboce Streets plus decking of the ground level existing
parking area along Castro to provide approximately 200 addi-
tional parking spaces, 3) a new four to six floor medical
office and other medical related facilities building at Noe
and Duboce Streets, currently an open parking area (this
building also includes three levels of above grade parking
. ■ i
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 3 - JANUARY 17, 1974
and two of these levels would extend southward to 14th Street) ,
4) a four floor center for development disabilities along 14th
Street in an area currently used for surface parking, but ap-
proved earlier by the Commission for use as an extended care
facility.
"Staff has encouraged the hospital to meet with residents
of the surrounding neighborhood concerning the proposed plans
and also to inform the San Francisco Comprehensive Health Plan-
ning Council of their proposal."
Commissioner Porter asked if the Commission would be governed by the
recommendation of the Comprehensive Health Planning Council or if it would
be free to make its own decision on the proposed expansion project.
The Director replied that the recommendation of the Council would be
advisory in nature and that it would not be binding on the Commission.
Commissioner Fleishhacker believed that the Commission should take the
position that it would not take action on any proposed medical facility with-
out obtaining a report and a recommendation from the Comprehensive Health
Planning Council, which is a quasi official body. That agency has expertise
in the medical facility field; and, instead of continuing to seek the advice
of that agency in isolated instances only as in the past, he felt that the
Commission should consistently seek the advice of the Council when new medi-
cal facilities are being considered.
Commissioner Miller, a member of the Comprehensive Health Planning Coun-
cil, indicated that he agreed with Commissioner Fleishhacker. He stated that
the Council does not presently have a great deal of data relative to non-bed
hospital facilities; however, the Council has instructed its staff to obtain
such data and, when it is available, the Council will be the best qualified
agency to advise the Commission on the need for new medical facilities which
are being proposed.
Commissioner Ritchie inquired about the background of the Comprehensive
Health Planning Council. Commissioner Miller replied that the Council is
authorized by Federal and State Law. The members of the Council name their
own replacements; however, the replacements must conform to certain cate-
gories indicated in the organizations' by-laws. One of the mandated functions
of the Council is to review all applications for Hill-Burton Funds; and, in
addition, the Council has responsibility for review of all medical facilities
in San Francisco. The Council has a permanent staff consisting of four
people.
Commissioner Ritchie stated that he x*as not aware that the Commission
had ever passed a motion stating that other agencies such as the Bay Con-
servation and Development Commission or the Association of Bay Area Govern-
ments must be consulted whenever issues arise which may be of interest
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 4 - JANUARY 17, 1974
to them; and he did not feel that the Comprehensive Health Planning Council
should be approached in any different fashion.
President Newman observed that the Commission has always consulted other
agencies whenever it has seemed appropriate to seek their advice. He then
asked how long the Comprehensive Health Planning Council has been in exist-
ence. Commissioner Miller replied that the agency has been in existence for
7 or 0 years.
President Newman then asked if the Council had been consulted when new
medical office buildings were proposed by Children's Hospital and the Pacific
Medical Center. Commissioner Miller replied in the negative, indicating that
the Council's general plan had not called for the review of medical office
buildings until 1973.
The Director stated that the next item on which he intended to report
to the Commission was related to the matter under discussion; and he felt
it might be helpful if he were to proceed with his report as follows:
"As you know, the Department is becoming increasingly con-
cerned with conditional use applications from institutions to
change, or expand their present physical plant. The St. Mary's
case is a recent example, and other hospitals such as Franklin
may be expected to submit applications in the near future. Of-
ten, the rather specific details of a conditional use applica-
tion are given to the Commission for review at the same time
as or before it has an opportunity to review changes in the
institution's Master Plan. The reason for Master Plan review
has been to give the Commission and the public an opportunity
to consider the space and facility needs of the institution,
and to provide a framework within which the conditional use
application can be better evaluated.
"Our experience with these institutional cases indicates
that the Master Plan process and its relationship to the con-
ditional use application should be clarified. One reason for
this is to evaluate more closely the relationship between the
particular institution and the other land uses surrounding it.
In order to do this, I have asked the staff to develop guide-
lines for the preparation of institutional Master Plans. These
proposed guidelines xjill be presented to you soon, and, with
your endorsement, will be distributed to the institutions as
a clarification of the Department's policy regarding institu-
tional Master Plan requirement."
President Newman remarked that each time a new medical facility is pro-
posed, the Commission is faced with a hospital and its supporters on one
hand and with large numbers of angry neighbors on the other; and it seemed
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 5 - JANUARY 17, 1974
to him that the advice of the Comprehensive Health Planning Council could
give the Commission a basis for making its decision in such circumstances.
Commissioner Ritchie stated that he had felt capable of making a
decision on St. Mary's recent application for a medical office building
without the benefit of the Comprehensive Health Planning Council's advice.
Commissioner Fleishhacker stated that the Commission, in approving a
conditional use application, must determine that the use proposed would be
necessary and desirable; and he did not feel that the Commission had made
such a finding before it acted on the St. Mary's application.
The Director suggested that the Commission might wish to defer further
discussion of this matter for two or three weeks at which time he would be
prepared to present the staff's proposed guidelines for the review of in-
stitutional master plans and conditional use applications. The Commission
concurred with that suggestion.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Commissioner Ritchie moved that Commissioner Newman be re-elected to
the office of President of the Commission and that Commissioner Porter be
re-elected to the office of Vice President of the Commission. He believed
that both Commissioners had handled their responsibilities tactfully, wisely,
and with a great deal of skill; and, therefore, he felt that it would be
appropriate for the Commission to retain them in their present offices. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Farrell. When the question was called,
the Commission voted unanimously to re-elect Commissioner Newman to the of-
fice of President of the Commission and to re-elect Commissioner Porter to
the office of Vice President of the Commission.
CONSIDERATION OF REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR LINCOLN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
SITE IN YERBA BUENA CENTER.
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, reported on this matter as
follows:
"By Resolution No. 525-73 adopted July 23, 1973, the Board
of Supervisors requested the City Planning Commission to select
a redevelopment project area comprising Lot 12, Assessor's Block
3752, which is the site of the former Lincoln Elementary School,
and to prepare a preliminary plan for redevelopment of said pro-
ject area for housing persons of low-to-moderate income in co-
operation with the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. This re-
quest stems from a settlement agreement between Tenants and
Owners in Opposition to Redevelopment (TOOR) and the Redevelop-
ment Agency calling for the designation of the subject site,
and three nearby sites within the Yerba Buena Redevelopment
Project Area, for housing for low-and-raoderate income mature
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 6 - JANUARY 17, 1974
aduts, which when effectuated will result in dismissal of liti-
gation interfering with the development of Yerba Buena Center.
The Board of Supervisors by ordinance re-allocated San Francisco's
hotel tax to facilitate the development of housing for low-to-
moderate income mature adults on these four sites. Additionally,
the Board approved amendments to the Redevelopment Plan for
Yerba Buena Center so as to require development of the three
TOOR sites within that project area for housing.
"In a letter to Mr. Tolan, Deputy for Development, dated
April 4, 1973, in statements before the Board of Supervisors,
and most recently in a memorandum to the City Planning Com-
mission dated May 31, 1973, the Director of Planning has re-
commended that the subject site is inappropriate for housing. Major
reasons cited are: 1) the site is not in an area designated
for residential development in the Residential Element of the
Comprehensive Plan, 2) the site and adjacent areas are zoned
M-l, a zoning district which prohibits new residential develop-
ment, 3) the site is subject to high levels of noise due to
frontage on Harrison Street, a heavy traffic street, and
proximity to the Fourth Street on ramp to the Freeway, a major
exit for traffic from the Yerba Buena Center and other downtown
commerical buildings, 4) the site is adjacent to land in or sub-
ject to industrial occupancies, 5) the area surrounding the site
has few supporting community facilities and services required by
residential uses, particularly elderly persons, and 6) the con-
centration of low-income housing in a relatively small geographic
area may conflict iri.th Master Plan guidelines on distribution
of subsidized housing throughout the City and may well result in
adverse segregation and isolation of a small segment of the
residential population. (Within three blocks approximately 740
lovv-income adult or elderly dwelling units now exist or are
under construction, and at least another approximately 380 units
may be developed on the three proposed TOOR sites within the
Yerba Buena Center Redevelopment Project) .
"Little has occurred since the above recommendations to change
these factors which are adverse to the development of the subject
site for low-and-moderate income housing for mature adults.
Concern about the probable impaction and current lack of services
has been supported by professionals in the social and housing
fields, particularly staff of the Public Housing Authority, which
agency has also questioned the personal safety of elderly persons
living in the proximity of a major sports arena and convention
complex and in an area relatively isolated from other residents.
The program of services and activities open to all persons aged
60 and over contemplated by the Salvation Army on its Silver Crest
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 7 - JANUARY 17, 1974
Residence site now under construction adjacent to the north of
the Lincoln Elementary School site appears to be nearing real-
ity. If this program does become operative some of the con-
cerns about the lack of community support facilities may be
answered. However the potential impaction problems, the iso-
lation of the area from residentially zoned areas, and the
basically non-residentially compatible uses in the immediate
vicinity of the subject site still make the use of the site
for housing of any sort questionable. Housing for low-to-
moderate income mature adults on the subject site appears
particularly undesirable. Use of the site for housing low-
and-moderate income persons would not appear to meet site
standards exercised by the Federal Housing Administration
in reviewing proposals for subsidized housing. The State
Community Redevelopment Law requires a showing that the
proposed redevelopment conforms to the City's master plan.
The precise need for using the redevelopment process has
not been definitely established.
"To review the suitability of the site for the occu-
pancy requested by the Board of Supervisors, the Depart-
ment prepared guidelines for the development of the site
for housing for low-and-moderate income persons. Due to
the lack of neighborhood facilities for children, and the
type of housing proposed in the TOOR settlement, the guide-
lines were developed solely for housing for persons with-
out children. These guidelines have been included in the
form of a preliminary redevelopment plan (attached). The
guidelines attempt to respond to the environmental and
social problems inherent to the site described above. The
guidelines would limit the height of development to the
present height limit of 50 feet applicable to the site,
and would limit the number of dwelling units to approx-
imately 90. This number of units would result in a den-
sity equivalent to the midpoint between R-3.5 and R-4
zoning districts. The R-3.5 district was established in
the Planning Code as appropriate for the housing of non-
children households in 40 foot high dwellings. The
guidelines give particular attention to shielding the
inhabitants of the proposed housing from noise both in-
side any building and in adjacent open space. Usable
open space would be required and lastly, the guidelines
call for services necessary for the well being of resi-
dents on the site not now provided in the immediate neigh-
borhood.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 8 - JANUARY 17, 1974
"Although the Department believes that a development in
keeping with these guidelines would alleviate some of the
problems originally stressed concerning housing on the sub-
ject site, major unresolved problems still would exist.
"These problems are: 1) housing for low-to-moderate in-
come adults on this site will add to the high concentration
of such housing built or contemplated in this compact area
which is distinctly isolated from other residential areas of
the City. This concentration, coupled with a lack of other
types of residential occupancies, even with the best of pro-
grams, will not provide a stimulus for improved social stand-
ards; 2) although appropriate guidelines may result in miti-
gation of adverse non-residential land uses and traffic ef-
fects on the subject site itself, these adverse effects will
continue unmitigated off the subject site. Personal safety
in the surrounding area, particularly for elderly persons,
is a major concern; 3) development of the site for housing
is not in conformity x^ith the Master Plan. Although the
Master Plan could be modified after a duly advertised pub-
lic hearing, in fact, the subject site and adjacent areas
on Harrison Street and Fourth Street appear to be best
suited for commercial development in keeping with the anti-
cipated occupancies of the Yerba Buena Center.
"The creation of new housing for low- and -mode rate in-
come persons would be best accomplished in, or immediately
adjacent to, areas that are zoned and developed residentially,
and which have in the immediate area a variety of services
needed by the residents."
Because of the problems cited in his report, he stated that he could
not recommend that the subject property be designated as a redevelopment
project area for housing. If the Commission shared the position which he
had taken, the appropriate action for it to take would be to request him
to write a letter to the Board of Supervisors advising that body that the
site should not be designated. If, on the other hand, the Commission should
feel that the project should be approved because of the TOOR agreement and
because of other factors, two actions would be required: first, adoption of
a resolution designating the project area and, secondly, adoption of a reso-
lution approving a preliminary plan for the project. He stated that he had
prepared drafts of both resolutions for consideration by the Commission.
However, before taking action on the matter, he felt that the Commission
should be familiar with the draft of the preliminary plan which had been
prepared by the staff of the Department of City Planning.
Robert Passmore, Planner V (Zoning), summarized the draft of the pre-
liminary plan which is available in the files of the Department of City
Planning.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 9 - JANUARY 17, 1974
Commissioner Porter, noting that the proposed plan specified that ser-
vices such as food preparation facilities, trained nursing and medical ad-
vice, trained recreation workers, trained social case workers, grocery and
convenience retail shopping area, a pharmacy, and inexpensive and convenient
transportation should be provided for residents of the housing project, asked
who would pay for those services.
Mr. Passmore replied that the proposed plan did not mandate that the
services be provided but merely stated that such services should be provided
either as a service provided by the subject project or in cooperation with
other housing projects in the area. For example, the Salvation Army, which
is constructing a housing project to the north of the subject site, will pro-
vide a grocery store and a pharmacy and is working out a program for medical
services and social work. That organization had also arranged to have food
catered for residents of its housing project; and it was possible that the
catering service could be extended to the project proposed for the Lincoln
Elementary School site.
Commissioner Porter asked who would have responsibility for management
of the public housing being proposed for the subject site. Mr. Passmore
replied that the proposed dwellings would not be "public housing" but would
be separately financed by City funds. He stated that the project would be
managed by a group formed by TOOR.
Commissioner Fleishhacker inquired about the number of dwelling units
which were being recommended for the subject site. Mr. Passmore replied that
the staff of the Department of City Planning had recommended that the maximum
permitted density be one dwelling unit for each 400 square feet of lot area
which would allow a maximum of approximately 90 units on the site.
Commissioner Fleishhacker then asked if the agreement between TOOR and
the City had established a requirement for construction of a particular num-
ber of dwelling units. Mr. Passmore replied in the negative.
John Dykstra, representing the Redevelopment Agency, confirmed that the
agreement had not specified that a particular number of dwelling units were
to be constructed but had merely stated that four sites, including the one
presently under consideration, were to be designated for low- to moderate-
income housing. With regard to the questions which had been raised by Com-
missioner Porter, he stated that the Redevelopment Agency felt that the ser-
vices which had been recommended in the plan would be very desirable; and he
believed that construction of additional dwelling units in the area would
provide the extra business needed to make such services economically feasible.
Commissioner Fleishhacker asked how many dwelling units were likely to
be developed in the Yerba Buena Center Redevelopment Project area. The
Director replied that approximately 1120 dwelling units are to be constructed,
not including those proposed on the Lincoln Elementary School site.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 10 - JANUARY 17, 1974
Mr. Dykstra remarked that the Director of Planning' s negative reaction
to the proposal to develop the Lincoln Elementary School site with housing
had been well known to the Board of Supervisors; and he acknowledged that
the Director had a right to be concerned about a number of issues. He
indicated that the only difference of opinion between the Director and the
Redevelopment Agency was that the Redevelopment Agency felt that many of
the potential problems could be changed or ameliorated through design to
achieve acceptable housing on the site. He also emphasized that the agree-
ment which had been entered into by T00R and the City made it essential to
develop the site i^th housing.
Commissioner Porter stated that she shared the Director's concern about
the proposed housing development; however, she felt that the Commission was
"caught in the middle" and was bound to approve the redevelopment plan because
of the terms of the agreement between the City and T0OR.
Commissioner Fleishhacker believed that the people who would have to live
in the project were the ones who would be "caught in the middle". He then
asked how many dwelling units had been contemplated by TOOR.
Peter Mendelsohn, representing TOOR, stated that his organization had
hoped that between 400 and 450 dwelling units could be developed on the four
sites mentioned in their agreement with the City. He also advised the Com-
mission that his organization was very concerned about the staff's proposal
to require one off-street parking space for each 5 dwelling units in the
project; and he stated that it was their position that no off-street parking
spaces whatsoever should be required. He pointed out that there are a number
of public parking lots and garages in the area; and, if people living in the
proposed housing project could afford to own automobiles, he felt that they
could also be expected to be able to afford to park their automobiles in pub-
lic garages. Therefore, instead of spending money for garage space in the
project, he felt that the money could better be spent to enlarge the size of
the dwelling units and to bring other amenities, such as a roof-top garden,
to the project.
Commissioner Fleishhacker, noting that the overall goal of TOOR was to
obtain a least 400 new dwelling units, asked how many units would have to be
constructed on the Lincoln Elementary School site to meet that quota. Mr.
Mendelsohn replied that he had hoped that 100 dwelling units could be con-
structed on the site; however, he recognized that it would be difficult to
realize that many units on the site because of the 50- foot height limit to
which the site is subject.
Lance Burris, Assistant Project Director for the Yerba Buena Center,
informed the Commission that relocation of tenants remaining in the center
portion of the project area would be contingent upon final approval of the
housing project proposed for the subject site. Since the project would not
be Federally- funded, the Redevelopment Agency would have more flexibility
in terms of design; and he believed that, through design and coordination
with the other housing sites in the Yerba Buena Center, a superior project
could be achieved.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 11 - JANUARY 17, 1974
Commissioner Ritchie stated that it seemed to him that the subject site
was an appropriate one for development with housing; and, therefore, he
moved that the site be selected as a project area. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Miller.
Commissioner Fleishhacker stated that he would support the motion. How-
ever, he did not regard the subject property was the best posssible site for
housing; and he believed that it was extremely important that the housing to
be built should be carefully designed and that it should be kept at a low
density. Therefore, if the Commission were to vote to select the project
area, he hoped that it would also vote to adopt the plans with the guidelines
which had been prepared by the staff of the Department of City Planning.
Commissioner Porter asked if a negative action on the proposal by the
Commission would place the Board of Supervisors in a position of being unable
to proceed with the project. The Director replied that it was possible that
a negative action might have that effect.
When the question was called, the Commission voted unanimously to adopt
Resolution No. 7133 and to select a project area to be known as the Lincoln
School Redevelopment Project Area.
Commissioner Fleishhacker asked if TOOR and the Redevelopment Agency
were satisfied with the preliminary plan which had been prepared by the staff
of the Department of City Planning for the Lincoln School Redevelopment Pro-
ject Area.
Mr. Dykstra replied that the only matter of concern to him was the staff's
requirement that one off-street parking space be provided for each 5 dwelling
units. That requirement would necessitate provision of up to 18 off-street
parking spaces on the site; and he questioned the need for that many parking
spaces in a project of the sort being proposed. He stated that the remainder
of the plan appeared to be satisfactory; and, in any case, the plan was only
preliminary in nature, making it possible for any problems which might arise
to be resolved when the final plan, which is to be prepared by the Redevelop-
ment Agency, is brought before the City Planning Commission for approval.
Mr. Mendelsohn stated that he, also, found the plan to be satisfactory
except for the off-street parking requirement.
Mr. Passmore stated that the Planning Code required one off-street park-
ing space per dwelling unit. The lesser number proposed in the plan was con-
sistent with the parking ratio allowed by zoning variances for public housing.
Commissioner Ritchie acknowledged that the elderly people who would be
living in the project might not have automobiles of their own. However,
professional people such as nurses, would be visiting the project; and, in
addition, members of the staff might drive to work. Under the circumstances,
he felt that it was important that some off-street parking should be provided
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 12 - JANUARY 17, 1974
for the facility; and he indicated that the requirement for one off-street
parking space for each 5 dxrelling units, as recommended by the staff, seemed
to him to be appropriate.
Commissioner Porter asked Mr. Dykstra to explain why he felt that the
parking requirement recommended by the staff would be excessive and to indi-
cate how much off-street parking he felt would be appropriate.
Mr. Dykstra replied that the parking issue would require further study
on the part of the Department of City Planning, TOOR, and the Redevelopment
Agency. He stated that off-street parking has been provided in the housing
projects which have already been constructed in the Yerba Buena Center; and
experience had demonstrated that those parking spaces are either used by
"intruders" or else that they are not used at all. He felt that there was
no question but what some off-street parking should be provided on the subject
site; however, he believed that the 18 spaces being required by the staff of
the Department of City Planning might be excessive. Under the circumstances,
his preference would be to have the parking issue left open with no specific
number of off-street parking spaces being indicated in the preliminary plan.
President Newman asked if the Commission would have an opportunity to
reconsider the parking issue when the final redevelopment plan is brought
before it for approval. Mr. Passmore replied in the affirmative.
After further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Fleishhacker,
seconded by Commissioner Ritchie and carried unanimously that Resolution No.
7134 be adopted and that the preliminary plan for the Lincoln Elementary
School Redevelopment Project Area, as proposed by the staff of the Depart-
ment of City Planning, be formulated and submitted to the Redevelopment Agency.
At this point in the proceedings the Director absented himself from
the meeting room for the remainder of the meeting.
CU73.62 - 1400 - 19th AVENUE, SOUTHEAST CORNER OF JUDAH STREET
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO MODERNIZE AND EXPAND A NON-
CONFORMING AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION AND TO EXTEND THE
MAY 2, 1980 TERMINATION DATE TO DECEMBER 31, 1985; IN
ANR-3 DISTRICT.
(UNDER ADVISEMENT FROM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
JANUARY 10, 1974).
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director - Implementation (Zoning
Administrator) noted that the Commission, during its meeting on January 10,
had Indicated its intention to approve the proposed expansion subject to
conditions but to retain the 1980 termination date; and it had instructed
the staff to prepare a draft resolution of approval with appropriate condi-
tions. He distributed copies of the draft resolution which he had prepared
and summarized the four conditions which it contained. He emphasized that
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -13- JANUARY 17, 1974
Condition No. 2 of the draft resolution would require the installation of
landscaping on the site; and he described the landscaping plan which had been
prepared by the staff of the Department of City Planning.
President Newman asked if the applicant were present in the meeting room.
Mr. Steele replied in the negative, noting that the Commission had previously
indicated its intention to approve the application subject to appropriate
conditions.
After discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Ritchie, seconded by
Commissioner Farrell, and carried unanimously that the draft resolution be
adopted as City Planning Commission Resolution No. 7135 and that the applica-
tion be approved in part subject to the conditions which had been recommended
by Mr. Steele.
CU73.63 - 899 NORTH POINT STREET, SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LARKIN STREET.
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR A PARKING LOT FOR APPROXIMATELY
25 AUTOMOBILES TO BE OPERATED IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXIST-
ING NON-CONFORMING GASOLINE SERVICE STATION: IN AN R-3
DISTRICT.
(UNDER ADVISEMENT FROM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
JANUARY 10, 1974).
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director - Implementation (Zoning Admin-
istrator), remarked that the Commission, during its meeting on January 10,
had indicated its intention to authorize a parking lot for 16 automobiles
on the subject site subject to appropriate conditions; and it had requested
the staff to prepare a draft resolution of approval with appropriate conditions.
He distributed copies of the draft resolution which he had prepared and sum-
marized the four conditions which it contained, emphasizing that the conditions
would require removal of the curb cuts on the Larkin Street frontage of the
property along the building and installation of a fence or barrier along the
Larkin Street property line adjacent to the building. He also indicated that
the conditions would require that landscaping be installed on the site; and
he described the landscaping plan which had been prepared by the staff. He
then recommended that the draft resolution be adopted.
President Newman asked if the applicant were present In the audience.
Mr. Steele replied in the negative but indicated that the conditions which
had been included in the draft resolution had been discussed at last week's
meeting when the applicant was present.
After discussion it was moved by Commissioner Fleishhacker, seconded
by Commissioner Porter, and carried unanimously that the draft resolution
be adopted as City Planning Commission Resolution No. 7136 and that the
application be approved subject to the conditions which had been recommended
by Mr. Steele.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -14- JANUARY 17, 1974
CU73.70 - 101, 109 and 115 SHIELDS STREET, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
BRIGHT STREET.
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR A NURSERY SCHOOL - CHILD
CARE CENTER: IN AN R-l DISTRICT.
(UNDER ADVISEMENT FROM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OF JANUARY 10, 1974).
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director - Implementation (Zoning Admin-
istrator) , stated that the Commission had taken this matter under advisement
from the meeting of January 10 with the request that the applicant use the
additional time to see if more suitable quarters could be found for the
nursery school. During the interim, the staff had had further contact with
OMI and had been advised that that organization preferred to take no stand
on the application because some of its members were in favor of the proposal
while others objected to it. In addition, a letter had been received from
John B. Laurant, President of the Community Children's Theatre, requesting
further postponement to provide additional time for the applicants to under-
take an extensive exploration of the possibilities for relocating the facil-
ity.
President Newman asked if a further postponement until the meeting of
March 7 would be satisfactory to the applicants. Mr. Laurant, who was present
in the audience, replied in the affirmative.
Commissioner Fleishhacker, noting that the nursery school is already
in operation on the subject site, remarked that a further postponement granted
by the Commission would allow the continued operation of an illegal use.
Mr. Steele confirmed that the existing facility is being operated in
violation of the City Planning Code; however, he indicated that it has been
his practice to refrain from enforcement action whenever applications are
pending which, if approved, would legalize the use. He remarked, however,
that it would not be proper for him to refrain from enforcement action for
an unreasonable period of time; and, as a result, he felt that the Commission
should reschedule the subject application for consideration on the earliest
possible date, even if action should be taken at that time to grant a further
postponement.
Mrs. Vermeil Hines, 114 Shields Street, advised the Commission that
visitors to the nursery school had purposely blocked driveways in the area
and had directed abusive words at residents of the area during the past week.
Mr. Laurant stated that he had spent a great deal of time during the past
week at the facility; and he had noticed that almost no automobiles were
parked on the street between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Therefore, he felt
that it was unlikely that any driveways had been blocked. Furthermore, he
was not aware that abusive language had been used; and he indicated that
people affiliated with the nursery school tried to remain as anonymous as
possible.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -15- JANUARY 17, 1974
Herbert Yarlbrough confirmed the statement made by Mr. Laurant. He
stated that he parks his own automobile on or across the driveway at 115
Shields Street; and he indicated that very few automobiles had been parked
on the street when he had visited the facility earlier in the day. With
regard to the issue of abusive language, he remarked that it would have
been foolish for individuals affiliated with the nursery school to act in
such a way while their application was pending before the Commission.
Commissioner Porter asked if children attending the nursery school use
the right-of-way of Shields Street as a playground. Mr. Yarlbrough replied
in the negative, indicating that the children play in the rear yard areas
of the subject properties on nice days.
President Newman asked Mrs. Hines if the operation of the nursery school
had changed during the past month. Mrs. Hines replied that the operation
had changed only during the past week since it had become known to residents
of the neighborhood that the use is illegal. She stated that she is at
home during the day since she does not work; and she indicated that she had
been spoken to abusively by volunteers who work with the nursery school.
Commissioner Fleishhacker felt that it might be appropriate to re-
calendar this matter for consideration on a date earlier than March 7.
Mr. Steele recommended that the matter be re-calendared for considera-
tion on February 7. At that time, if the applicants have given evidence
that they are pursuing the quest for alternate quarters in good faith, the
Commission might wish to grant a further postponement.
Commissioner Farrell felt that it might be best for the applicant if
the Commission were to take action on the matter during the present meeting
since they would then know definitely whether they would have to move or
whether they would be allowed to remain in their present quarters.
President Newman noted that a number of residents of the neighborhood
had spoken in opposition to the proposed use; and, as a result, he felt that
it was possible that the application might be disapproved by the Commission.
Once the application has been disapproved by the Commission, the Zoning
Administrator would have to take enforcement action against the illegal use;
and the nursery school would be out of business.
Commissioner Fleishhacker felt that some purpose might be served by
postponing action on the application for another month to see if the appli-
cants and residents of the neighborhood could work out their differences.
Commissioner Farrell observed that the two sides seemed to have grown
further apart in the past week.
After further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Miller and
seconded by Commissioner Fleishhacker that this matter be continued under
advisement until the meeting of February 7.
:
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -16- JANUARY 17, 1974
Commissioner Ritchie cautioned the applicants that unkind or hostile
and abusive treatment by anyone should be strictly avoided; and he suggested
that they should caution their volunteers and others to be courteous and
considerate at all times, both in attitude and language.
When the question was called the Commission voted unanimously to
continue this matter under advisement until the meeting of February 7, 1974.
CURRENT MATTERS
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director - Implementation (Zoning Admin-
istrator), remarked that the Commission had adopted Resolution No. 7037 on
July 5, 1973, to authorize use of a vacant parcel property on the south-
east corner of Hyde and Bush Streets as an employee parking lot for St.
Francis Hospital. Since that time, the hospital had decided that it would
be desirable to make the parking lot available for visitors for the Francis-
can Treatment Room, a facility operated for employees of the City and County.
Since it had understood that a parking lot was to be used by the staff of
the hospital, the Commission, in adopting Resolution No. 7037 had specified
that only one 8-inch by 12- inch sign could be displayed to identify the lot
as property of the hospital. Now, in view of the fact that the parking lot
would be used by people other than members of its staff, the hospital had
requested permission to increase the size of the identifying sign; and it
had submitted two alternate designs to the Department of City Planning for
consideration. The reason why the matter had been brought before the Cora-
mission was for a determination as to whether the enlargement of the sign
would be within the intent of the Commission when it adopted the resolution
in July. In his opinion, the request of the hospital would seem to be gen-
erally within the scope of the intent expressed in the previously adopted
resolution.
Commissioner Fleishhacker asked if the property at the southeast corner
of Bush and Hyde Streets is owned by the hospital. After Mr. Steele had
replied in the affirmative, Commissioner Fleishhacker observed that the
property really should be on the City's tax rolls if it is being used for
a commercial purpose.
After further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Ritchie, seconded
by Commissioner Porter and carried unanimously that the enlarged sign be
approved as being within the intent of Resolution No. 7037 which was adopted
on July 5, 1973.
President Newman read the following draft resolution which had been
prepared by the staff of the Department of City Planning.
"WHEREAS, The Recreation and Open Space element cf the Compre-
hensive Plan, adopted by this Commission in May 1973, calls for the
acquisition of additional citywide open space for public use; and
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -17- JANUARY 17, 1974
"WHEREAS, The Recreation and Open Space element identified five
high-need neighborhoods, and recommended that those neighborhoods
be given priority for recreation improvements; and
"WHEREAS, Recreation and Open Space Programs, endorsed by this
Commission in July 1973, also calls for establishment of a San
Francisco Open Space Acquisition and Development Fund for the
purpose of the creation of new public parks and recreation facili-
ties in accordance with the Recreation and Open Space element of
the Master Plan; and
"WHEREAS, A broad-based citizen group has proposed a Charter
amendment to establish a San Francisco Acquisition and Development
Fund, based on a property tax override of 10c per $100 assessed
value, to be used for acquisition and development of open space
in San Francisco in accordance with the plan, and as specified in
the Charter amendment; and
"WHEREAS, The proposed Charter amendment would directly
implement recommendations contained in the Recreation and Open
Space element and in Recreation and Open Space Programs;
"BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission
does officially endorse the proposed Charter amendment, and does
consider it a desirable and expedient method of implementing
recommendations contained in the Recreation and Open Space element
of the Comprehensive Plan."
After discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Fleishhacker and
seconded by Commissioner Porter that the draft resolution be adopted.
Commissioner Miller stated that he would abstain from voting on the
motion since the actual language of the proposed Charter amendment might
have the effect of establishing a real estate bureau under the Recreation
and Park Commission which would be separate and distinct from the Department
of Real Estate.
Commissioner Ritchie stated that he, also, would be concerned about
the possibility of establishing a separate real estate bureau which would
have to hire its own appraiser and other staff members; and he suggested
that the Commission should defer endorsement of the proposed Charter amend-
ment until that issue has been clarified.
Commissioner Farrell suggested that the Commission might wish to
consult Wallace Wortman, Director of Property, before adopting the draft
resolution.
After further discussion, Commissioner Fleishhacker withdrew his motion
of approval and Commissioner Porter withdrew her second of the motion.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
•18-
JANUARY 17, 1974
Subsequently, it was moved by Commissioner Ritchie, seconded by
Commissioner Porter, and carried unanimously that further discussion of
this matter be postponed until the Commission's meeting on January 24, 1974.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynn E. Pio
Secretary
-^BAN FRANCISCO
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
DOCUMENTS
FEB 1 1
Minutes of the Regular Meeting held Thursday, January 24, 1974.
The City Planning Commission met pursuant to notice on Thursday,
January 24, 1974, at 1:30 p.m. in the meeting room at 100 Larkin Street.
PRESENT: Walter S. Newman, President; Mrs. Charles B. Porter, Vice-
President; John C. Farrell, Mortimer Fleishhacker, John
Ritchie, and Hector E. Rueda, members of the City Planning
Commission.
ABSENT: Thomas J. Mellon, member of the City Planning Commission.
The staff of the Department of City Planning was represented by Allan
B. Jacobs, Director of Planning; George A. Williams, ^.isistant Director -
Plans and Programs; Lucian Blazej, City Planning Coordinator; John Phair,
City Planning Coordinator; Pv.onald Jonash, City Planning Coordinator; James
White, Planner IV; Selina Bendix, Environmental Review Officer; Marie Zeller,
Planner III - Administrative; Nathaniel Taylor, Planner II; Glenda Skiffer,
Planner II; Linda Ferbert, Planner II; Marcy Lifton, Planner I; and Lynn E.
Pio, Secretary.
Donald Canter represented the San Francisco Examiner; Larry Liebert
represented the San Francisco Chronicle.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved by Commissioner Porter, seconded by Commissioner
Fleishhacker, and carried unanimously that the minutes of the meeting of
December 6, and 13, 1973, be approved as submitted.
CURRENT MATTERS
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, introduced Selina Bendix, the
Department of City Planning' s new Environmental Review Officer.
The Director advised the Plan Implementation Committee (Commissioners
Fleishhacker, Porter, Rueda) of a meeting scheduled next Thursday afternoon,
January 31, at 12:15 p.m.
At this point in the proceedings Commissioner Rueda arrived in the
meeting room and assumed his seat at the Commission table.
The Director continued his report, as follows:
"About 10 months ago a group of citizens met to discuss
methods of implementing the Recreation and Open Space Element
of the Comprehensive Plan, particularly in regard to that part
of the plan which recommends acquisition of additional open
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 2 - JANUARY 24, 1974
space in San Francisco. A number of nethods of financing open
space acquisition were discussed at that time, including form-
ation of a regional open space district, proposal bond issues,
etc. It was finally decided that a tax override with the pro-
visions included in the proposal nox? before you, on the property
tax acquisition would "be the most desirable method of estab-
lishing an ongoing acquisition fund.
"During the past few months, members of the ad hoc com-
mittee to establish this fund have been meeting with members
of the Board of Supervisors, and members of the Recreation
and Park and City Planning Commissions about the proposal.
The proposal has received wide-spread support from members
of the Board and City Commissions, and has been introduced
at the Board by Supervisor Pelosi. It has been scheduled
for a public hearing before the Legislative and Personnel
Committee of the Board on February 7.
"The intent of the proposal is to develop a mechanism
for implementing the Recreation and Open Space Element of
the" Comprehensive Plan. As you know, the Plan calls for
acquisition of open space at locations throughout the City,
and development of new parks on the Eastern Shoreline and
in the high need neighborhoods. The Charter Amendment seeks
to establish a fund which could be directed to these purposes
with existing City agencies as staff. It is estimated that
a 10<? override per $100 assessed valuation will yield $2%
million annually.
"The Charter amendment Specifies that the funds would
be used on those property acquisitions determined by this
Department to be in conformity with the Master Plan and im-
plemented programs adopted by this Commission; it specifies
in addition that for the first five yeafs of the fund, 75%
of monies received shall be spent on acquisition. The monies
from the fund would be' applicable to recreational development
only of properties acquired through the fund. The amendment
provides also for an annual joint meeting of the Recreation
and Park Commission and City Planning Commission for the
purpose of reporting on the implementation of the action
programs and fund expenditures, as well as of hearing recom-
mendations for future acquisition.
"The proposed Charter Amendment was presented to the
Recreation and Park Commission last Thursday. That Commission
did endorse the proposal with the exception of Section 3.552,
paragraph 8. The concern of the Recreation Park Commission
was similar to the point raised by you at your last meeting —
that the Real Estate Department continue to be the operating
agency to negotiate property acquisition, lease, etc. The
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 3 - JANUARY 24, 1974
Recreation and Park Commission also questioned whether the
position of Director of Open Space Acquisition would be neces-
sary. It was pointed out that the Charter Amendment simply
authorizes the appointment of such a Director but does not
require it.
"Your staff feels that the proposed Charter amendment
is an important and basically sound proposal. We would recom-
mend that the proposal be amended to make clear that there would
be no duplication of the function of the Director of Property
and Department of Real Estate.
"There are a few other clarifying changes that the staff
feels would be appropriate. Supervisor Pelosi, sponsor of the
Charter amendment, has called a February 1 meeting of repre-
sentatives of various interested departments to work out a
proposal acceptable to all concerned. These points would be
worked out at that time.
"A resolution endorsing this proposed Charter amendment
in principle and authorizing staff to work with the Board of
Supervisors in developing language acceptable to the Depart-
ment has been prepared for you."
Wallace Wortman, Director of Property, stated that the Real Estate
Department is equipped to acquire property for the Recreation and Park De-
partment; and he felt that establishment of a real estate bureau within the
Recreation and Park Department would result in a duplication of function.
Robert Kirkwood, Co-Chairman of the Executive Committee of San Franciscam
for Open Space and Recreation, remarked that the most consistent criticism
which had been received regarding the proposed Charter amendment related to
the possibility that a separate real estate bureau might be established in
the Recreation and Park Department. He emphasized, however, that the legis-
lation had been carefully drafted to avoid any build-up of staff so that a
maximum amount of money would be available for property acquisition.
Emmett O'Donnell, representing the Recreation and Park Department,
stated that the proposed Charter amendment, with the changes which had been
recommended by the staff of the Department of City Planning, would be accept-
able.
Commissioner Fleishhacker, noting that the draft resolution indicated
that the San Francisco Acquisition and Development Fund would be "based on
a property tax override of 10c per $100.00 assessed value", stated that he
had assumed that the additional assessment would be included in the property
tax; and, if that were the case, he questioned whether it was appropriate
to refer to the additional tax as a tax "oweride".
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 4 - JANUARY 24, 1974
Commissioner Ritchie recommended that the word "override" be deleted
from the draft resolution. In addition, if the proposed Charter amendment
were to be approved by the Commission in principle, he felt that the following
language should be added to the "resolved" clause of the draft resolution:
"provided also that the proposed Charter amendment be worded so that the
acquisition of space will be handled by and through the City's Real Estate
Department. "
After further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Porter, seconded
by Commissioner Fleishhacker and carried unanimously that the draft resolution,
which the changes which had been recommended by Commissioner Ritchie, be
adopted as City Planning Commission Resolution No. 7137.
As an information item, the Director presented a plan which had been
prepared by the staff of the Department of City Planning, at the request of
the Waterfront Advisory Committee to the Bay Conservation and Development
Commission (BCDC), to illustrate the development potential of the area along
the waterfront bounded generally by the Bay Bridge and Second Street for
residential purposes. Subsequently, he and James White, City Planning Co-
ordinator, responded to questions raised by members of the Commission.
R73.71 - JURISDICTIONAL TRANSFER OF PROPERTY FROM THE REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY TO THE RECREATION AND PARK DEPARTMENT (WESTERN
ADDITION MINI-PARKS).
Richard Gamble, Planner IV, reported on this matter as follows:
"A group of five mini-parks is proposed to be constructed by
the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and turned over to the
Recreation and Park Department for operation. The southerly por-
tion of A-2 is designated as a high priority area in the Recrea-
tion and Open Space Plan.
"In 1964 the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution urging
SFRA to develop a system of mini-parks and walkways throughout
the A-2 project. Where practical they were to be public parks,
but privately owned play areas were also to be integrated into
the system. Largely due to the City's inability to fund an ex-
panded park system, SFRA has emphasized private play areas in
A-2's new housing projects.
"The principal park and recreational facilities in the A-2
area are located just outside the project: Hamilton Playground
and Raymond Kimball Playground at Geary Boulevard on the north-
west, Alamo Square at the southwest and Jefferson Square -Hay ward
Playground in the east-central portion.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 5 - JANUARY 24, 1974
"Within A-2 the Buchanan Street Mall, from Grove to Eddy
Street is the largest single recreation space. The new housing
projects throughout the southeastern part of A-2 all have their
own sitting and play area. It is the other areas, those with
substantial rehabilitation, where such facilities are lacking,
and there that the mini-parks are to be proposed.
"The five are located as follows:
"1. Sutter Street at Cottage Row, west of Webster: The
mini-park occupies a 30 x 137.5-foot lot beside Cottage Row, a
nine-foot walkway which extends to Bush Street and has six
houses fronting on it. The walk will be repaved in brick and
illuminated. In keeping with the private and intimate atmos-
phere of the Row, the park will be fenced, but with gates
opening onto the Row. It will have a lawn area separating
the children's play from adult sitting areas.
"2. Golden Gate and Steiner, northeast corner. This
has a similar arrangement, but less grass area, and includes
trees in the sidewalk area. The lot is 35 x 82 feet.
"3. O'Farrell Street at Biedeman Place, one-half block
west of Scott Street, southwest corner. This is an existing
mini-park, installed several years ago, which is to be reha-
bilitated and relandscaped. It features a large play sculpture,
paved play area and a lawn. The site is 30 x 60 feet.
"4. Fillmore south of Turk Street. This is a 93.5 x
100-foot lot adjoining the Muni generating plant on the south-
east corner. It features a large central grass area flanked
by play and sitting areas. Across the rear is an elaborate
stone veneer wall, built several years ago in a youth employ-
ment program, and in the front an extra wide sidewalk with
double row of trees.
"5. Octavia Street, west side north of Bush. This might
more accurately be described as a sidewalk plaza than as a
mini-park. It is 172 feet long and 19 feet wide. It is in-
tended to set off the six huge eucalyptus trees in front of
the San Francisco Eye and Ear Hospital and Cathedral Hill
Medical Center. It consists of a brick bordered sidewalk of
varying width, crushed rock around the trees, 8 bollards, and
memorial tablet embedded in the sidewalk. There are no benches
or play equipment."
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 6 - JANUARY 24, 1974
The Director stated that the Department of City Planning was favorably
disposed toward preservation of the trees and the creation of a sidewalk
plaza on Octavia Street in that such actions would further the objectives
of the Urban Design Plan. He indicated, however, that the question of
jurisdiction of the plaza t/as not affected by, and did not affect, the
Master Plan. He recommended that he be authorized to report that the trans-
fer of jurisdiction of the first four sites be approved as in conformity
with the Master Plan and that the transfer of jurisdiction of the 19-foot
wide sidewalk on the west side of Octavia Street south of Bush Street does
not affect the Master Plan.
Emmet O'Donnell, representing the Recreation and Park Department, stated
that he was familiar with the eucalyptus trees on Octavia Street; and he was
convinced that they would be a never ending problem regardless of whose
jurisdiction they are under because they have been topped at least twice and
because the new growth is not as strong as the original growth. He also
felt that it would be unwise to install a brick sidewalk around the trees
because the existing concrete sidewalk, which is not very old, has already
been lifted in several places by the roots of the trees. He believed that
it would be unwise to preserve the trees and to require the City to maintain
them.
Commissioner Porter inquired about the life expectancy of eucalyptus
trees. Mr. O'Donnell replied that eucalyptus trees may live for hundreds
of years. He also remarked that the trees on Octavia Street are not a suit-
able variety for street trees because they are dangerous.
Commissioner Farrell asked if the Recreation and Park Department would
be willing to assume the cost which would be involved in maintaining the
trees and keeping the sidexralk area clean.
Mr. O'Donnell replied that the sidewalk plaza xrould not be a true "mini-
park"; and he did not feel that it should come under the jurisdiction of the
Recreation and Park Department.
S. Myron Tatarian, Director of Public Works, stated that responsibility
for maintenance of the trees would probably devolve upon the Department of
Public Works if the sidewalk area is not placed under the jurisdiction of
the Recreation and Park Department. He remarked that the trees were planted
privately; and he felt that they should be maintained privately. He em-
phasized that experts had concurred that the trees are dangerous; and, as
a result, it was his recommendation that the trees should be removed.
The Director emphasized that the question before the Commission was not
whether the trees should be preserved but whether the proposed transfer of
jurisdiction over the sidewalk area would be in conformity with the Master
Plan; and his recommendation was that the proposed transfer of jurisdiction
would not affect the Master Plan.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 7 - JANUARY 24, 1974
Brian Fewer, Supervisor of Tree Planting for the Department of Public
Works, displayed litter which he had picked up from the sidewalk area be-
neath the eucalyptus trees earlier in the day and remarked that the City
would face the threat of law suits unles the sidewalk is swept several times
a day. He also remarked that he had talked with a tree surgeon who had
worked on the trees 25 years ago and had noticed decay in the trunks of the
trees at that time; and, in view of the fact that the decay had probably
increased during the interim, he felt that there was a good chance that the
trees might someday fall across the street, landing on people or automobiles.
Commissioner Fleishhacker suggested that the Commission should take
action on the first four sites which had been reported on by Mr. Gamble be-
fore acting on the Octavia Street sidewalk area. Subsequently, it was moved
by Commissioner Fleishhacker, seconded by Commissioner Porter, and carried
unanimously that the Director be authorized to report that the transfer of
jurisdiction for mini-parks on Lot 12, Block 677 (cottage row), Lot 10,
Block 754 (Golden Gate - Steiner) , Lot 29, Block 111 (Biedeman and O'Farrell),
and a portion of Municipal Railway property Block 756, to the Recreation and
Park Department is in conformity with the Master Plan.
Wallace Wortman, Director of Property, stated that the Redevelopment
Agency was recommending that the Board of Supervisors accept the Octavia
Street sidewalk area as a mini-park; and, if the sidewalk area were to be
accepted by the Board as a mini-park, it would have to be maintained by the
Recreation and Park Department. If it is not declared a mini-park and trans-
ferred to the Recreation and Park Department, the Department of Public Works
would continue to have responsibility for maintenance of the sidewalk be-
cause it is located in the official street right-of-way.
Al Williams, a citizen, stated that the eucalyptus trees on Octavia
Street are healthy and beautiful; and he indicated that the trees are a source
of great pride to the black community because they were planted by Mary Ellen
Pleasant. He believed that other speakers had misrepresented the health of
the trees; and he believed that sweeping up leaves should be regarded as a
small price to pay for the gift of having such beautiful and historic trees.
A representative of the Redevelopment Agency confirmed that the trees
do have historic value; and he advised the Commission that the trees of Pub-
lic Works, in a letter signed in 1971, had agreed to maintain the trees.
The question of jurisdiction had risen only because the proposal had been
made to designate the sidewalk area has a mini-park; and the final decision
on that matter would have to be made by the Board of Supervisors.
Commissioner Ritchie recalled that consideration had been given to the
possibility of designating the trees as Landmarks. Commissioner Porter
stated that the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board had not been willing
to recommend that they be designated as Landmarks.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 8 - JANUARY 24, 1974
President Newman asked for a show of hands from members of the audience
who were present to support retention of the trees. Approximately 12 people
responded.
After further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Fleishhacker,
seconded by Commissioner Ritchie, and carried unanimously that the Director
be authorized to report that the transfer of jurisdiction of the 19-foot
wide sidewalk on the west side of Octavia Street south of Bush Street does
not affect the Master Plan.
George A. Williams, Assistant Director - Plans and Programs, and Ronald
Jonash, City Planning Coordinator, presented and summarized a report entitled
"Residence: Strategy and Programs" and responded to questions which were
raised by members of the Commission. The report is available in the files
of the Department of City Planning.
After discussion the Commission decided to postpone its endorsement of
the report pending further discussion to be scheduled during its meeting on
January 31, 1974.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynn E. Pio
Secretary
^£ DOCUMENTS
—SAN FRANCISCO £B 1 S
l I ^ITY PLANNING COMMISSION JRA
Ql I l<-f PUBLIC LIBRARY
^.Minutes of the Regular Meeting held Thursday, January 31, 1974.
The City Planning Commission met pursuant to notice on Thursday,
January 31, 1974, at 1:00 p.m. at 100 Larkin Street.
PRESENT: Walter S. Newman, President; Mrs. Charles B. Porter,
Vice-President; John C. Farrell, Mortimer Fleishhacker,
Thomas J. Mellon, John Ritchie and Hector E. Rueda,
members of the City Planning Commission.
ABSENT: None
The staff of the Department of City Planning was represented by
Edward I. Murphy, Acting Director of Planning; George A. Williams,
Assistant Director-Plans and Programs; R. Spencer Steele, Assistant
Director-Implementation (Zoning Administrator); Robert Passmore,
Planner V (Zoning); Peter Groat, Planner IV Urban Systems Analyst;
Ronald Jonash, City Planning Coordinator; John Phair, City Planning
Coordinator; Marie Zeller, Planner III Administrative; Wilbert Hardee,
Planner II; Carl Ness,Planner II; Nathaniel Taylor, Planner III; and
Lynn E. Pio, Secretary.
Maitland Zane represented the San Francisco Chronicle; Donald
Canter represented the San Francisco Examiner; and Carol Kroot re-
presented the San Francisco Progress .
1:00 p.m. - Field Trip
Members of the Commission and staff departed from 100 Larkin
Street at 1:00 p.m. to take a field trip to properties scheduled for con-
sideration during the Zoning Hearing to be held on February 7 , 1974 .
2:15 p.m. - 100 Larkin
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved by Commissioner Mellon, seconded by Commissioner
Rueda, and carried unanimously that the minutes of the meeting of
November 16, 1S73, be approved as submitted.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -2- JANUARY 31, 1974
R63.67 - PERFORMING ARTS CENTER -PARKING FACILITY
President Newman announced that Arthur S. Becker, Director of the
Parking Authority, had requested that consideration of this matter be
postponed indefinitely. After discussion, it was moved by Commissioner
Mellon, seconded by Commissioner Ritchie, and carried unanimously
that the postponement be granted.
CURRENT MATTERS
President Newman announced that Allan B. Jacobs, Director of
Planning, was in Cleveland to attend the funeral of his mother.
Edward I. Murphy, Acting Director of Planning, read the following
statement:
"A suit challenging the validity of the Environmental Impact
Report for the San Francisco International Airport has been filed
against the Board of Supervisors, the Airports Commission and
the City Planning Commission.
"The Petition for Mandamus was filed in Superior Court by
the San Francisco Ecology Center, Friends of the Earth, San
Francisco Tomorrow and individual residents of San Francisco
and San Mateo County, through their attorneys William Brinton
and Ricardo Hecht. A notice of the filing of this suit was sent
to the Commission, as required by law.
"In another pending suit, H. & L. , Inc. (Louis Petri) vs.
the City and the Director of Planning, challenging the height
and bulk ordinance, the City Attorney has now filed an answer
and a motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiffs are contend-
ing that an environmental impact report was required for that
ordinance, and the answer denies that is so and furthermore
states that for a number of reasons the court lacks jurisdiction
in the case. It is expected that the motion for summary judg-
ment will be sometime in March . "
Mr. Murphy informed the Commission that Supervisor Kopp had re-
quested the City Attorney to prepare legislation which would require that
notices of City Planning Code changes designate street numbers, where
possible, of the properties affected. The staff of the Department of City
Planning is reviewing the legislation; and a public hearing will be held
on the matter.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -3- JANUARY 31, 1974
Peter Groat, Planner IV Urban System
report which had been submitted by Berkeley Planning Associates, the
Department of City Planning's consultant on the Economic Growth Study
Design project. During the course of his report, he indicated that the
consultants had suggested 27 additional studies which might be under-
taken, some of which could be carried out "in house". In conclusion,
he stated that the Department of City Planning intended to develop a
work program scaled to its abilities in order to provide answers to some
of the questions related to economic growth issues.
Carl Ness, Planner II , presented a status report on automobile
dismantling yards. The report, which is available in the files of the
Department of City Planning, contain . a summary which reads as
follows:
"With the requirement of Conditional Use authorization
and the guidelines for review of applications adopted by the
City Planning Commission in 1869, the general appearance
of automobile dismantling yards has improved and the impact
of the yards on neighboring uses has been reduced. The
development guidelines which have been used are sufficient
to effect first class auto wrecking operations. Two modifi-
cations of these standards, however, have been proposed.
They pertain to fencing and the requirement for landscaping.
"It has been noted that where wrecking yards remain in
poor condition, it is a result of non-compliance with Plan-
ning Commission guidelines. Two additional enforcement
procedures are available to the Department of City Planning
to expedite abatement actions .
"The Department of City Planning will request the City
Planning Commission to hold public hearings for the purpose
of revocation of Conditional Use permits where specific
dismantling yards are not in compliance with the conditions
of the Conditional Use authorization. In addition, the
Zoning Administrator, acting under Section 307 (f) of the
City Planning Code, will seek cooperation and joint enforce-
ment action from the Police Department where dismantling
yards are operating in violation of the Police and City Planning
Codes."
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -4- JANUARY 31, 1974
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director-Implementation (Zoning
Administrator), noted that the Commission, on September 6, 1973, had
adopted Resolution No. 7066 declaring its intention to hold a public
hearing on proposed reclassification of property in the area bounded by
Union Street, Van Ness Avenue, Bush Street, and Steiner Street, as re-
quested by the Pacific Heights Association; and it had directed the Zoning
Administrator to set a time and place for the hearing, which time was to
be not later than 5 months after the date of the resolution. However, the
Interim Residential Zoning controls which had been recommended by the
Commission to deal with some of the zoning problems which had led the
Pacific Heights Association to request the re-zoning had not been adopted
by the Board of Supervisors until January 28, 1974; and, as a result of that
delay, the Pacific Heights re-zoning had not been scheduled for consider-
ation during the 5 month period previously stipulated by the Commission.
Since the Interim Controls had now been adopted, he felt that it would be
appropriate to proceed with hearing of all pending reclassification requests;
and,therefore , he recommended adoption of a draft resolution which would
extend the 5 month period originally established in Resolution No. 7066
and which would set the date of the public hearing on the proposed re-
classification of property in Pacific Heights on April 18 , 1974 . After
discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Rueda and seconded by Com-
missioner Porter that the draft resolution be adopted.
Commissioner Farrell suggested that it might make more sense to
delay the public hearing on the Pacific Heights reclassification application
until the Comprehensive Residential Zoning Study has been completed. Mr.
Steele replied that the filing of that application had established a "freeze"
on all new development which would not comply with re-zoning being re-
quested; and, in any case, all applications for re -zoning should be acted
on in a reasonable period of time.
Commissioner Fleishhacker stated that he had understood that many of
the concerns of the Pacific Heights Association would be satisfied by
adoption of the Interim Residential Zoning Controls. Mr. Steele confirmed
that the Pacific Heights Association may modify its reclassification request
after the Interim Residential Zoning Controls have been signed into law by
the mayor.
Commissioner Fleishhacker then stated that he hoped that the Com-
mission would be advised of any changes which might be made in the
application well in advance of the public hearing-on April 18.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -5- JANUARY 31, 1S74
Ralph Coffman, representing the Pacific Heights Association, stated
that representatives of his organization intended to meet with the staff
of the Department of City Planning within the next two weeks; and he hoped
that they would reach a decision with regard to possible modification of
their application prior to April 18 .
When the question was called, the Commission voted unanimously
to adopt the draft resolution as City Planning Commission Resolution
No. 7138 extending the date for the public hearing on the Pacific Heights
Association's application and scheduling that hearing on April 18, 1S74.
George A. Williams, Assistant Director-Plans and Programs, pre-
sented and read the following memorandum entitled "Format, Substance,
and Procedures to be Required for Institutional Master Plans. "
I. Background
"It is ao existing policy of the City Planning Commission
to request master plans of educational and medical institutions.
The purpose of the institutional master plan is to explain as
fully as possible the reasons for any proposed development,
and, in general, to provide a basis on which future proposed
development can be reviewed by the City Planning Commission
and the public. The content of the institutional master plan,
however, has never been defined in writing. One purpose of
this memorandum is to assist institutions by indicating the
scope of coverage in a master plan appropriate for review by
the Commission.
"Another purpose is to extend citywide a policy recently
endorsed in an area plan for the Hcight-Ashbury area con-
cerning the impact of institutional expansion on the surrounding
neighborhood. That policy stated that institutional master plans
should take into account the needs of the adjacent community,
"including, but not limited to, the need to maintain an adequate
supply of low and moderate-income housing, the need to reduce
traffic congestion and the demand for parking, and the need to
provide medical and social services to the community insofar
as possible. "
"The institutional need for growth, in response to changing
demands and changing technology, may conflict with the need
to preserve the scale and character of residential neighborhoods.
The objective of an early review of an institution's long- and
short-range development plans is to seek ways to accommodate
the needs of the institution while reducing that conflict as much
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -6- JANUARY 31, 1974
as possible. The following outline indicates the format
and substance that would be desirable in an institutional
master plan.
II. Format and Substance of Master Plan
"A . Introduction
"The introduction should contain a brief description
of the institution, its history of growth, the services it
provides, the population groups that benefit from its
services, and any other general information that would
help in understanding what the institution is and does.
The introduction should then describe the present
physical plant of the institution, showing the location
of buildings, land uses, circulation patterns and park-
ing in and around the institution.
"B. Long-Range Development
"The second section should describe the long-range
development plans of the insitution. In a conceptual
manner, the institution should attempt to project what it
will be ten to twenty years hence, and what it will need
in the way of space and buildings in order to achieve
that projection. If certain present buildings will become
obsolete at some time during the interim, they should be
indicated, as well as the new buildings that will be needed
to replace them.
"By necessity, this section will be based on a number
of assumptions about factors and conditions beyond the in-
stitution's control. Changes in such things, for example,
as population characteristics, lifestyles, enrollments,
Federal funding levels, and the development of new techniques
in the delivery of services all dictate, to some degree, the
future of the institution. Any assumptions that are made
for the purpose of dealing with these uncertainties should
be clearly stated . It is acknowledged that this section of
the master plan is the most susceptible to change in the
years ahead, and its content, therefore, should not pre-
clude changes in the plan in the future.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -7- JANAURY 31, 1974
C . Short -Range Development
"This section should focus on any short-range develop-
ment of the institution that will be necessary within the next
five years. The types of buildings should be indicated , as
well as the scope and area of any physical expansion con-
templated. If expansion is proposed, the plan should explain
in detail the reasons why the expansion is necessary.
"Any contemplated development should be described in
general terms. It is not anticipated that specific structures
will have been designed in detail. This section should con-
tain sufficient textual and graphic material in schematic
form to indicate the boundaries of the site area, ground
coverage, building bulk, floor area by function, off-street
parking, circulation patterns in and around the institution,
areas for land acquisition, and anticipated changes in
numbers of employees and users. If the plan calls for a
staging of development, the timing should be indicated.
"In general, the information sought in this section
could focus on physical development and its relationship
to the immediate surroundings. The internal workings of
the contemplated development need not be indicated , except
insofar as they bear on the need for and justification of the
development .
"D. Conformity to Neighborhood Plans and the Comprehensive Plan
"This section should indicate how the proposed develop-
ment conforms to the neighborhood plans for the affected area ,
if any, and to the Comprehensive Plan of the City and County
of San Francisco.
"E. Neighborhood Impact of Proposed Development
1 . Impact
"This subsection should indicate the reasonably anticipated
impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding neighbor-
hood. Among the possible impacts that should be assessed are:
"a) the effect on existing housing units; size,
number, rental value, condition;
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -C- JANUARY 31, IS 74
"b) the relocation of housing occupants;
" c) the relocation of commerical and industrial tenants;
"d) the change in circulation patterns, traffic levels,
transit demand and parking availability;
"e) the change in commercial activities; and
"f) the change in character and scale of development
between the proposed development and the surrounding
neighborhood .
"2. Alternatives
"This subsection should indicate how the needs of
the institution, as expressed in the master plan, might
be met in ways other than that which is planned which
would avoid or lessen the adverse impact on the neighbor-
hood. This subsection should include various location
alternatives, configuration alternatives, and the alternative
of taking no action. The approximate costs and benefits
of each alternative should be indicated .
"Also, the institution should indicate on a map any
areas where the development could be accommodated
v.'ithout necessitating physical expansion of the institution
into residential areas.
"3. Mitigation Measures
"This subsection should address the impacts that
were identified in subsection E(l) in terms of the mitigating
actions the institution is considering to offset such impacts.
"in. Procedures
"The objective of this institutional master plan process
is to provide an opportunity for the City Planning Commission
the City Planning staff and the general public to review the
institution's plans at an early stage before the institution
invests substantial sums in building design.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -9- JANUARY 31, 1974
"In some cases in the past, the institutional master
plan review process has been conducted almost simultaneously
with the hearing on a needed conditional use approval for an
imminent development with the result that attention has been
primarily focused on the conditional use approval rather than
on both the long- and short-range development contemplated
by the master plan.
"In order to correct this problem, the institutional master
plan should be reviewed well in advance of filing a conditional
use permit. As a general rule, the master plan should be filed
and considered by the Commission at least six months before
a conditional use application is filed, but the Department may
grant exceptions to this rule if there are extenuating circum-
stances. Exceptions may also be made in the case of develop-
ment proposals already contemplated in a master plan reviewed
by the Commission prior to the issuance of this memorandum.
"Proposed developments not indicated in a master plan
which has been reviewed by the Commission will require a
revision of the master plan. These revisions should also be
reviewed well before a conditional use application dependent
upon them is filed.
"Notification of the City Planning Commission meeting
to review the master plan or an amendment thereto should be
given in the same manner as provided for hearings on
conditional use applications.
'IV. Effect of Master Plan Review
"Master plan review does not constitute endorsement
of the development proposals contained in the plan nor
permission for any work not already granted conditional
use authorization by the Commission. The purpose of the
review is to raise concerns of the City Planning Commission,
City Planning staff and the general public at an early stage
when the institution may be in the best position to respond
to them.
"Conditional use applications for authorization of
specific developments wi.ll continue to be subject to review
in the prescribed manner under the criteria set forth in
Section 303 of the Planning Code.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -10- JANUARY 31, 1974
"An environmental impact report may also be required
by the State law for the institution's further development.
In that event, the master plan should be written with a view
toward inclusion of all or parts of it in the environmental
impact report . "
Commissioner Porter remarked that San Francisco has a number of
highly developed Medical Institutions; and, before taking action in
accordance with the recommendations of the staff of the Department
of City Planning, she felt that the Commission should determine what
effect such action might have on institutions which already exist. As
a case in point, she stated that she had received a letter from the
Administrator of Franklin Hospital asking whether that hospital's master
plan, which had already been approved by the Commission, could be
changed; and, before voting to establish new procedures for institional
master plans, she wished to have an answer to that question. She also
felt that it would be wise for the Commission to discuss the staff pro-
posals with the administrators of other major medical institutions in
the city before establishing the new procedures.
Commissioner Fleishhacker emphasized that master plan approvals
and conditional use approvals are two different things; and, as indicated
in the staff memorandum, "Master plan review does not constitute
endorsement of the development proposals contained in the plan nor
permission for any work not already granted conditional use authorization
by the Commission" .
Commissioner Mellon stated that hospital administrators have assumed
that they would be able to obtain Conditional Use Authorization for projects
indicated in approved master plans; and, to the extent that no opposition
had been raised, he felt that they were justified in their expectations. He
also noted that the memorandum which had been prepared by the staff con-
tained the statement that "exceptions may also be made in the case of
development proposals already contemplated in a master plan reviewed by
the Commission prior to the issuance of this memorandum" .
Commissioner Poiter stated that hospital administrators have relied
on master plan approval by other Commissions in the past; and she felt
that it would be wrong for the present Commission to renege on promises
made by previous Commissions.
After further discussion the Commission decided to take this matter
under advisement for one week .
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -11- JANUARY 31, 1S74
EE73.165 - PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR PROPOSED 35 UNIT APART "
MENT BUILDING TO BE LOCATED ON PROPERTY
AT 897 CALIFORNIA STREET, SOUTHEAST CORNER
OF POWELL STREET
(UNDER ADVISEMENT FROM MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 1974)
President Newman advised the Commission that a letter had been
received from James A. Nassikas, President and Managing Director of
the Stanford Court, requesting continuance of the scheduled hearing
and further requesting that the Commission conduct a discretionary
review of the building permit application for the proposed project. After
discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Porter, seconded by Com-
missioner Ritchie, and carried unanimously that the request for the
continuance be denied.
Alec Bash, Planner III, presented and summarized the report.
The Commission then received comments on the report from the
following members of the audience: Victor L. Walch, representing the
Stanford Court; Ted Boone, George F^ltico, and Rene Cardinaux, re-
presenting the Developers; and Edward Head, President of the Nob Hill
Association.
At the conclusion of the public hearing, Robert Passmore, Planner
V (Zoning) , recommended that several changes be made in the report in
response to concerns which had been raised by Mr. Walch.
After further di scussion it was moved by Commissioner Porter,
seconded by Commissioner Mellon, and carried unanimously that
Resolution No. 7139 be adopted finding that the final Environmental
Impact Report, as modified is adequate, accurate, and objective. The
Commission also certified the completion of the report and found that
the project, as proposed, would not haves significant effect on the
environment.
A standard tape cassette recording of the proceedings is available
in the offices of the Department of City Planning for public listening
or transcription .
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -12- JANUARY 31, 1974
CONSIDERATION OF HOUSING PROGRAMS AND STRATEGY REPORT
(UNDER ADVISEMENT FROM MEETING OF JANUARY 24 , 1974)
It was moved by Commissioner Porter, seconded by Commissioner
Ritchie, and carried unanimously that this matter be continued under
advisement until the meeting of February 7, 1£74.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynn E. Pio
Secretary
7 /
SAN FRANCISCO
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of the Regular Meeting held Thursday, February 7, 1974.
The City Planning Commission met pursuant to notice on Thursday, February 7,
1974, at 2:15 p.m. in the meeting room at 100 Larkin Street.
PRESENT: Walter S. Newman, President; Mrs. Charles B. Porter, Vice-President;
John C. Farrell, Mortimer Fleishhaclcer, Thomas J. Mellon, John Ritchie,
and Hector E. Rueda, members of the City Planning Commission.
ABSENT: None.
The staff of the Department of City Planning was represented by Allan B. Jacobs,
Director of Planning; George A. Williams, Assistant Director - Plans and Programs;
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director - Implementation (Zoning Administrator); Peter
Svirsky, Planner V (Zoning); Ronald Jonash, City Planning Coordinator; Daniel Sullivan
Planner IV (Zoning); Linda Ferbert, Flanner II; and Lynn E. Pio, Secretary.
Larry Liebert represented the San Francisco Chronicle; Donald Canter represented
the San Francisco Examiner; Carol Kroot represented the San Francisco Progress; and
Sanna Craig represented the San Francisco Bay Guardian.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved by Commissioner Porter, seconded by Commissioner Fleishhacker, and
carried unanimously that the minutes of the meeting of January 3, 1974, be approved
as submitted.
CURRENT MATTERS
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, indicated that the Commission, during its
meeting on January 31, had received a request from the manager of the Stanford Court
to conduct a discretionary review of plans for an apartment building proposed for
property located on the southeast corner of California and Powell Streets; and, althou
the Commission had taken action on the Environmental Impact Report for that project,
It had not responded to the request for a discretionary review. He stated that he
failed to see any improvements in the building which could be accomplished through
discretionary review; and, as a result, he recommended that the request for discre-
tionary review be denied. After discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Porter,
seconded by Commissioner Fleishhacker, and carried unanimously that the request for
discretionary review of the proposed building be denied.
Peter Svirsky, Planner V (Zoning), read the following statement:
"At a recent meeting the staff reported to the Commission that the
State Guidelines governing environmental review have been amended, and
that as a consequence certain changes in the local ordinance would be
required.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING . - 2 - FEBRUARY 7, 1974
"We have reviewed the Guidelines changes quite thoroughly with
the City Attorney, and are submitting jointly-prepared amendments to
the Board of Supervisors at the request of a committee of the Board.
"Fortunately, although there are many wording changes in the
Guidelines, there is little significant effect on our local procedures.
Most of the changes in our ordinance merely make clarifications or con-
form the terminology.
"The Board of Supervisors has already made one unrelated amendment
to the ordinance. Last Monday, the Board voted to require the inclusion
in an EIR of the estimated energy requirements of the project, in terms
of electricity and fossil fuels. This is not a major addition, and
can be said to be within the intent of the State Guidelines.
"In the ordinance now being sent to the Board, the following are the
significant changes pursuant to the State Guidelines :
"(1) A requirement that each Negative Declaration include reasons
for its conclusion. This goes a little beyond the checklist we have been
using, but will usually anount to no more than repeating the evaluation
already made in summary form.
"(2) Elimination of the concept of 'adoption' of a completed EIR
by the decision-making body, and substitution of the requirement that
the body 'certify that it has reviewed and considered the information
contained in the EIR. '
"(3) Provision for an optional addendum to the EIR by either
the decision-making body or an appellate body considering the project,
in which that body may indicate its further evaluation of the environ-
mental factors, if any, and state the manner in which the body may
have taken into account other public objectives or overriding considera-
tions in relation to its action on the project. This last point is not
strictly required by the State Guidelines, but it is strongly suggested
there.
"The addendum to the EIR is also a substitute for another kind of
amendment that some members of the Board of Supervisors have indicated
they might want to see adopted: an appeal procedure that would allow
appeal from the Commission's certification of completion of the EIR to
the Board of Supervisors or Board of Permit Appeals, depending upon
which would ultimately review the project itself. The staff has felt
that such an appeal would be illogical and would lead to confusion
and repetition, as well as delaying action each time on the project
to allow the 10-day appeal period to rim.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 3 - FEBRUARY 7, 1974
"The ordinance providing for an appeal came before the full
Board last Monday and was continued for two weeks without debate.
It is the staff's hope that the alternative now being sent to the
Board will be the one to be adopted."
At this point in the proceedings, Commissioner Ritchie arrived in the meeting
room and assumed his seat at the Commission table.
CONSIDERATION OF HOUSING PROGRAMS AND STRATEGY REPORT.
(UNDER ADVISEMENT FROM MEETING OF JANUARY 31, 1974)
George A. Williams, Assistant Director - Plans and Programs, noted that this
report had been presented and summarized on January 24; and he indicated that he and
Ronald Jonash, City Planning Coordinator, were present to answer any question which
the Commission might have concerning the report.
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning recommended that a draft resolution con-
taining the following resolve be adopted:
"RESOLVED, (1) That the City Planning Commission endorses the
report entitled, 'Residence, Strategy and Programs ---Recommendations
for Implementing the Residence Element of the Comprehensive Plan of
San Francisco,' dated December, 1973, with the understanding that
the figures related to future Federal funding are tentative estimates
and that priorities may have to be reconsidered If actual funding is
substantially different, and (2) That the City Planning Commission
authorizes the Director of Planning to take all reasonable steps to
attain implementation of the strategy and programs described therein."
After discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Rueda, seconded by Commissioner
Porter, and carried unanimously that the draft resolution be adopted as City Planning
Commission Resolution No. 7140.
At 2:20 p.m. President Newman announced that the meeting was recessed. Members
of the Commission then proceeded to Room 282, City Hall, and reconvened at 3:00 p.m.
for hearing of the remainder of the agenda.
3:00 p.m. - Room 282, City Hall
ZM73.31 - 202, 204-203, 210, 214, 218, 222, 226, 230, 236-238, 240 AND
244 ROOSEVELT WAY.
R-4 TO AN R-2 DISTRICT.
(POSTPONED FROM HEARING OF DECEMBER 6, 1973).
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director - Implementation (Zoning Administrator),
referred to land use and zoning maps to describe the subject property which consists
af a total of 12 lots with 300 feet of frontage on Roosevelt Way and a depth of 125
£eet for an aggregate area of 37,500 square feet. He stated that nine of the lots
are vacant, two are developed with one- family dwellings, and one is developed with
a two-family dwelling. In conclusion, he stated that a hospital may be permitted as
a conditional use in R-2 and less restrictive zoning districts.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 4 - FEBRUARY 7, 1974
President Newman called attention to a number of letters which had been received
concerning the subject application.
Wesley Dawe, President of the Buena Vista Neighborhood Association, advised the
Commission that his organization considered itself to be a co-sponsor of the appli-
cation which had been made by Edward Proctor Maschal, owner of property at 259 Roose-
velt Way; and he indicated that the members of his association were overwhelmingly
in support of the proposal for re-zoning from R-4 to R-2 was that most of the pro-
perties in the neighborhood are presently developed with one- and two-family dwellings,
and they felt that development of the subject properties to R-4 standards would be
inappropriate. He indicated that an application requesting the same re-zoning had
previously been filed in 1969; but it had been disapproved. He stated that many of
the properties within a 300-foot radius of the subject site remain under the same
ownership as in 1965; and, as a result, and he felt that that coincidence testified
to the stability of the neighborhood. He also remarked that the neighborhood is
unique in terms of factors mentioned in the Urban Design Plan; and he felt that that
uniqueness should be preserved. He informed the Commission that Archie Unruh, owner
of one of the subject properties located at 222 Roosevelt Way, had written a letter
in support of the requested re-zoning. The owners of the other lots, with the ex-
ception of St. Joseph's Hospital, had failed to keep their properties free of litter
and had thus disregarded the best interests of the neighborhood. Members of the
association had recently met with individuals who wished to develop four of the sub-
ject lots to R-4 standards; and, at the conclusion of that meeting, they were con-
vinced that it would be difficult to obtain a design for the proposed building which
would not modify the character of the neighborhood. He stated that a petition had
been circulated in the neighborhood in October; and, as was the case in 1965, most
of the people contacted had indicated their support of the application for rezoning
of the properties. Representatives of his organization had also met with represen-
tatives from St. Joseph's Hospital on three occasions to discuss the application; and,
while the hospital has no long-range development plan, the spokesman for the hospi-
tal had indicated that some facility which might be needed by the hospital in the
future might require R-4 zoning. Thus, it had not been possible to work out a com-
promise with the hospital. As a result, the applicants were left with only three
alternatives. The first alternative would be to drop the application; however, such
action would do nothing to preserve the character of the neighborhood. The second
alternative would be to modify the application to exclude property owned by the
hospital; but that approach would seem to discriminate against the private property
owners. The third alternative was to seek approval of the application as submitted;
and it was that approach which was being taken. He emphasized that medical facilities
may be permitted as a conditional use in an R-2 zoning district; and, if the hospital
should eventually decide to sell or lease its property, R-2 zoning would provide
protection for the neighborhood. Under the circumstances, he urged that the applica-
tion be approved.
Commissioner Porter questioned whether St. Joseph's Hospital could, in fact, use
R-2 property to satisfy its own expansion needs. Mr. Steele replied that hospitals
may be permitted in R-2 districts as Conditional Uses.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 5 - FEBRUARY 7, 1974
Commissioner Farrell, "noting that the applicant lives across the street from
the subject properties, inquired about the zoning of properties on the opposite
side of the street. Mr. Steele replied that properties on the opposite of Roosevelt
Way are zoned R-2.
Bill Perse, resident of the area, stated that he favored the proposed reclassi-
fication of his property because he believed that it would have a good effect on
the neighborhood.
Sue Hestor, president of the Eureka Valley Promotion Association, stated that
she was concerned about the possibility that more intensive development on Roosevelt
Way might increase traffic congestion on Castro and 17th Streets; and she believed
that the additional traffic might create pressures for widening Market Street beyond
the four traffic lanes to which the city is presently committed.
Leonard Berger, Attorney for Francis Gelarde, owner of four of the subject lots,
displayed a model of a building which his client proposed to construct on his prop-
erty. He emphasized that the property had been zoned R-4 for at least ten years.
In addition, the area is surrounded by multiple-family dwellings. The St. Joseph's
Hospital building is a structure of considerable scale; and the neighborhood has more
open space than other parts of San Francisco. He stated that the apartment build-
ing which his client proposed to construct would provide dwelling units for people
who cannot afford to buy their own homes ; and he remarked that no objections had
been raised to the R-4 zoning of the property until residents of the neighborhood
had become aware of his clients plans to develop his property. The development -
being proposed would make maximum use of the zoning of the property; and he felt
that the development would be in the best interests of the neighborhood and of the
city as a whole. He stated that his client had paid taxes based on R-4 zoning for
the past ten years; and, because the property is subject to a 40-foot height limit
and to other restrictive controls, he felt that it would be unfair to change the
zoning from R-4 to R-2.
James Malott, Architect for Mr. Gelarde, stated that they had met with the
Buena Vista Neighborhood Association on April 28, 1973, to discuss the proposed
development of Mr. Gelarde 's property. At that time, no firm plans for the devel-
opment had been prepared. Under R-4 zoning, 62 dwelling units would technically be
permitted on the property; however, because of the 40-foot height limit and because
of other factors, development of the site with that number of units would not be
practical. They had advised neighborhood representatives that they felt that 40
units would be feasible. The neighborhood representatives had indicated that their
prime concerns were 1) that off-street parking spaces be provided at a ratio of at
least one parking space for each dwelling unit, 2) that the 40-foot height limit
be respected, 3) that the site be heavily planted, 4) that the building contain a
minimum number of dwelling units, and 5) that the building be designed to blend as
much as possible with the neighborhood. Subsequently, the model which was present-
ly on view in the Commission meeting room had been prepared; and he and his client
had again met with resident? of the neighborhood on July 30, 1973. The building
depicted by the model would contain 32 dwelling units ; and it would conform to the
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 6 - FEBRUARY 7, 1974
other criteria previously mentioned by representatives of the neighborhood. The
neighborhood representatives had replied that the proposal for 32 dwelling units
was excessive; and, in spite of the fact that his client had proposed to provide
1.1 off-street parking spaces for each dwelling unit, the neighborhood representa-
tives had felt that the building 'would still create a parking problem. Subsequently,
they had filed an application requesting that the subject properties be reclassified
from R-4 to R-2. Mr. Malott observed that the present R-4 zoning of the properties
provides a transition from the R-4 properties to the northwest to the R-2 properties
located to the east and southeast of the subject properties. He also believed that
the building which his client proposed to construct would provide a transition from
St. Joseph's Hospital to the smaller scale buildings on the opposite side of the
street. With regard to the issue of parking, he stated that he had visited the
neighborhood and had never counted fewer than 18 on-street parking spaces available
within 200 feet of the subject properties. While traffic moves on Roosevelt Way
at relatively high speeds, he felt that problems of access to and egress from the
garage spaces in the proposed building would be minimized by the fact that only
two garage doors would be provided. In conclusion, he noted that the new Interim
Residential Zoning Controls had gone into effect since the model was prepared; and,
as a result, the number of dwelling units which could be provided on the site would
be further reduced.
Commissioner Fleishhacker asked how many units would be permitted on the prop-
erty owned by Mr. Gelarde if that property were to be rezoned to R-2. Allan B.
Jacobs, Director of Planning, replied that eight dwelling units would probably be
permitted under those circumstances.
S. Frances Gumerlock, Administrator of St. Joseph's Hospital, advised the
Commission that the hospital's School of Nursing is no longer in operation and
that no specific plans have been made for future use of that building. Yet, in
spite of the fact that the hospital has no definite plans for future expansion, he
emphasized that hospitals today must also be medical centers. During the past ten
years, the Board of Directors of St. Joseph's Hospital had worked with Thomas Hsieh
to develop short- and long-range plans for the hospital, concentrating mainly on
short-range plans for the facility. When the subject application had been 'scheduled
for hearing before the Commission on November 1, 1973, the hospital had requested
postponement of the hearing so that a meeting could be arranged with the Buena Vista
Neighborhood Association; and, during the interim, three meetings had been held.
The hospital was concerned that the proposed rezoning would affect its plans in the
future and had wanted to find out why its property had been included in the applica-
tion; but no satisfactory response to that question had been obtained from the neigh-
borhood representatives. He stated that he had not previously seen the model which
had been displayed by Mr. Malott; and, for that reason, he had formed no opinion
about that proposed development. However, if the Commission were inclined to
approve the reclassification of private properties on Roosevelt Way from R-4 to
R-2, he urged that the zoning of the properties owned by St. Joseph's Hospital be
allowed to remain unchanged.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 7 - FEBRUARY 7, 1974
Thomas Hsieh, Architect for St. Joseph's Hospital, advised the Commission that
reclassification of property owned by the hospital from R-4 to R-2 would definitely
affect the future growth of the hospital. He indicated that one of the elements of
a total medical center is housing for doctors and nurses; and he remarked that St.
Joseph's Hospital may wish to utilize the property which it owns on Roosevelt Way
for housing in the future. If so, it would be essential for the property to be
zoned R-4. He noted that the hospital must work closely with the Department of
City Planning as expansion projects are being considered; and he assured residents
of the neighborhood that the hospital would work closely with them, also. He
recognized that there is some community concern about the growth of major institu-
tions; but he did not feel that the concern was justified in the case of St. Joseph's
Hospital, which is a very responsible organization. In conclusion, he urged the
Commission not to rezone the property owned by the hospital.
Mr. Berger stated that his client owns four separate legal lots of record; and
he felt that the building which his client proposed to construct would be more com-
patible with the neighborhood than four duplexes. He advised the Commission that
his client would have no objection to a condition limiting development of his prop-
erties to a maximum of 25 dwelling units if the subject application were to be dis-
approved.
Charles Molinari, Attorney for St. Joseph's Hospital, stated that there has been
a shortage of housing in San Francisco; and, therefore, if the hospital were to con-
struct housing for its nurses and staff on Roosevelt Way, it would be fulfilling a
community need.
The Director emphasized that the only matter before the Commission for action
was the requested rezoning of the subject properties from R-4 to R-2; and he indicated
that the model of a possible development which was on display was not relevant to the
issue being considered. He stated that the majority of the properties along Roosevelt
Way are developed with single-family and two-family dwellings, giving the street a
small-scale and low density character of development. He remarked that substantial
neighborhood support had been evidenced for the purpose of maintaining the present
scale and density of the street; and he noted that a hospital is permitted by
conditional use authorization in an R-2 district as well as in an R-4 district. For
these reasons, he recommended that the application be approved.
President Newman asked if housing for the hospital would be permitted in an R-2
District. The Director replied that housing could probably be authorized as a condi-
tional use if it were to be directly related to the hospital as an accessory use.
Mr. Steele remarked that the housing would probably front on Roosevelt Way; and,
as a result, he felt that it would probably not be considered to be an accessory use.
Commissioner Porter pointed out that the Commission had recently recommended
the enactment of Interim Residential Zoning Controls to protect residential neighbor-
hoods until the Comprehensive Residential Zoning Study is completed; and, in taking
that action, the Commission had hoped that the Interim Controls would satisfy
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 8 - FEBRUARY 7, 1974
neighborhood concerns and discourage neighborhood requests for rezoning of properties
from R-4 to R-2. Under the circumstances, she felt that the Commission should be
aware of the effect which the new Interim Zoning Controls would have on the subject
properties even if they were to retain their R-4 zoning.
Mr. Berger stated that his client could have constructed 32 dwelling units on
his lots before the Interim Controls went into effect. With the new controls, it
would be feasible to construct only 25 dwelling units on the property.
Commissioner Ritchie stated that the Commission had adopted the Interim Residen-
tial Zoning Controls to avoid the alternative of being faced with a continuing series
of applications, such as the one presently under consideration, requesting piecemeal
rezoning. Furthermore, he felt that the development depicted in the model on display
before the Commission would be more harmonious with existing development in the area
than four duplexes. For those reasons, he felt that the R-4 zoning of the property
should be retained and that the application requesting reclassification of the
properties to R-2 should be disapproved.
After further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Rueda and seconded by
Commissioner Ritchie that the application be disapproved. Commissioner Rueda also
suggested that the Commission should adopt a policy of holding a Discretionary Review
of plans for any project proposed for the properties in the future.
Commissioner Fleishhacker remarked that the subject application had been filed
before the Interim Residential Zoning Controls had been enacted; and, in any case,
he did not feel that the Commission could prevent neighborhood organizations from
filing applications for "down zoning." Because all of the other properties fronting
on Roosevelt Way in the immediate vicinity are zoned R-2, he felt that the rezoning
presently being requested would be more appropriate than some other rezonings which
had recently been approved by the Commission; and it was not clear to him why the
properties had been zoned R-4 in the first place.
The Director stated that the point which had been made by Commissioner' Porter
was well taken; and he indicated that he would not in any way encourage neighborhood
organizations to file applications for rezoning while the Citywide Comprehensive
Zoning Study is underway. However, he remarked that the subject application had been
filed before the Interim Residential Zoning Controls had been recommended or enacted;
and, since existing development in the area is clearly R-2 in nature, it had seemed
to the staff that the proposed rezoning should be approved.
Commissioner Fleishhacker stated that there are no R-4 or R-3 buildings in the
area at the present time but only single- and two-family dwellings and vacant lots.
The 'application which was presently being considered involved hospital property and
non-hospital property; and, with regard to the property owned by the hospital, he
indicated that he would like to receive firmer assurances that the proposed rezoning
would not affect the hospital's ability to expand in the future. He pointed out
that the Commission, in taking action on the application, could exclude the property
owned by the hospital; and, as an alternative, he felt that it might be possible for
the Commission to rezone the hospital's property to R-3 rather than R-2.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 9 - FEBRUARY 7, 1974
"The Director stated that the Commission could not rezone the hospital property
to R-3 since that option had not been mentioned in the application.
Commissioner Fleishhacker then observed that the spokesman for the hospital had
stated that the hospital would not build anything which would not harmonize with
the neighborhood; however, if the hospital property should be exempted from re-
classification and if it should be sold by the hospital at a later date, the buyer
could build to R-4 standards. Under the circumstances, he wondered if the hospital
could make any binding commitment that it would not sell the property.
Mr. Gumerlock stated that the Board of Directors of the hospital had never
discussed the possibility of selling or leasing hospital property. However, they
were concerned about the proposed rezoning because there was a possibility that they
might wish to construct housing for staff and students on the Roosevelt Way property
in the future; and, they had understood that separate dining facilities for that
housing would not De permitted in an R-2 district.
Commissioner Fleishhacker stated that he felt that the R-4 zoning of the subject
properties is highly incompatible with actual development in the area; and, as a
result, he intended to vote against the motion to disapprove the application.
Commissioner Ritchie asked for clarification of the exact location of the lots
owned by the hospital. Mr. Steele referred to a nap and indicated that lots 15, 16,
17, and 18, the easternmost lots included in the subject application, and lot 22,
were the ones which are owned by the hospital. Mr. Gumerlock stated that the hospita
was not concerned about the zoning of lot 22 since that property does not lie contig-
uous to the other four lots owned by the hospital on Roosevelt Way.
President Newman stated that the Commission had received 102 letters and signa-
tures in support of the application and only one letter in opposition to the requeste
rezoning.
Commissioner Porter agreed with Commissioner Fleishhacker' s observation that
R-2 zoning would be more compatible with existing development in the area; however,
she did not believe that the property which St. Joseph's Hospital has owned for
many years should be rezoned to R-2. She asked what types of residential develop-
ment would be permitted on the hospital property under the Interim Residential
Zoning Controls if that property were to be reclassified to R-3. Mr. Steele replied
that the four lots owned by the hospital could be developed with 16 dwelling units
if they were to be reclassified to R-3. The same number of dwelling units could
be constructed on the lots owned by Mr. Gelarde.
President Newman stated that he, also, was concerned that rezoning of the
properties owned by the hospital to R-2 might inhibit the future expansion plans of
the hospital. However, since' the owners of the other parcels of property had not
made a similar argument, he questioned whether it would be wise for the Commission
to disapprove the entire application, leaving all of the property zoned R-4.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 10 - FEBRUARY 7, 1974
Commissioner Mellon stated that he was prepared to vote for disapproval of the
application and to rely on the Interim Residential Zoning Controls to determine how
the subject properties can be used. He emphasized that the staff and Commission had
spent a great deal of time formulating the Interim Residential Zoning Controls for
the specific purpose of avoiding the type of "spot zoning" proposed by the subject
application.
When the question was called, the Commission voted 6-1 to adopt Resolution
No. 7141 and to disapprove the subject application. Commissioners Farrell, Mellon,
Newman, Porter, Ritchie and Rueda voted "Aye"; Commissioner Fleishhacker voted "No."
Subsequently, it was moved by Commissioner Porter, seconded by Commissioner
Rueda, and carried unanimously that Resolution No. 7142 be adopted to announce the
Commission's intention to hold a discretionary review of plans for any projects
proposed in the future on the properties which had been included in Application No.
ZM73.31.
ZM74.1 - 2045 LAWTON STREET, SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 27TH AVENUE
R-3 TO A C-2 DISTRICT.
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director - Implementation (Zoning Administrator),
referred to land use and zoning maps to describe the subject property which is a
rectangular parcel with a 90-foot frontage on Lawton Street and a 25-foot frontage
on 27th Avenue for a total lot area of 2,375 square feet. The building on the site
Is occupied by the Philippine News, a non-conforming use with an April 27, 1981,
termination date, on the ground floor and a dwelling unit on the upper floor which
has been converted to offices in violation of the provisions of the City Planning
Code. The owner of the property had filed the application for reclassification from
R-3 to C-2 in order to legalize the present use of the building.
Commissioner Fleishhacker, noting that the subject property is not located
adjacent to a C-2 district, asked if the staff could provide him with a definitive
definition of the term "spot zone." Mr. Steele replied that a "spot zone" could
be defined as a rezoning which gives a special favor to only one or a few property
owners. In reply to further questions raised by Commissioner Fleishhacker, Mr.
Steele stated that he felt that approval of the subject application would result in
"spot zoning" and that such action on the part of the Commission would be illegal.
Alejandro A. Esclamado, the applicant, submitted folders containing petitions,
a list of owners of property within a 300-foot radius of the subject site, financial
data concerning the Philippine News, and a sample copy of the Philippine News.
He stated that the Philippine News is published in San Francisco and distributed
throughout the United States. The editorial staff of the newspaper is housed in
the building which occupies the subject property; however, the newspaper is actually
printed elsewhere. He stated that he and his family had previously lived on the
premises; however, because of bad relations which had developed with one of their
neighbors, they had decided to move elsewhere and to convert the second floor of
the building to offices. He stated that the building occuping the property was
obviously designed for commercial use; and he remarked that it is located in a
commercial area. Referring to the folder which he had distributed to members of
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 11 - FEBRUARY 7, 1974
the Commission, he indicated that he had obtained the signatures of 907. of his
neighbors on a petition which stated that they had no objection to the proposal
to reclassify the property to C-2. A second petition had been signed by individuals
who had been misinformed of his intentions by one of his neighbors and who had
originally signed petitions in opposition to the proposed re-zoning; and, with the
understanding that the present use of the property would not be changed and that
no new construction or addition of heavy machinery would take place, they had
indicated their willingness to withdraw their previous objections to the reclassifi-
cation. Mr. Esclanado stated that the list of property owners within a 300-foot
radius of the subject site which had been included in the folder container notations
to indicate which of the property owners were in support of the subject application,
those who were opposed to the application, and those who had not been contacted; and
he noted that the same information was reflected on a map of the neighborhood which
he had prepared for review by the Commission. He remarked that the Commission, in
considering another zoning application earlier in the afternoon, had given special
consideration to St. Joseph's Hospital because it provides a public service; and
he felt that his newspaper, which is also a public service, should also deserve spe-
cial consideration.
President Newman asked individuals who were present in the audience in support
of the subject application to stand. Several people responded.
Mrs. Twomey, owner of property on the opposite side of Lawton Street, stated
that the ground floor of the subject building was used as a furniture store before
it became the offices of the Philippine News; and, with furniture being unloaded
on the sidewalk, she considered that use to have been much more objectionable than
the present use of the premises. Yet, no complaints had been registered against
the furniture store. She also indicated that another building further down the
street was used as a grocery store and has now been converted into the House of
Lawton; and it creates a serious parking problem in the neighborhood. She stated
that the publisher of the Philippine News had cleaned up the premises of the subject
property, making it possible for children to ride their bicycles on the sidewalk
again; and she did not feel that continuation of the use would have any detrimental
effect on the neighborhood.
President Newman asked if the interior of the second floor of the building had
been remodeled since it was converted from residential use to office use. Mr.
Esclamado replied in the negative and indicated that he did not intend to remodel
that space.
Dr. Amancio G. Ergina, President of the Philippine American Council of San
Francisco, remarked that Filipinos are the fastest growing ethnic group in San
Francisco. As such, they are naturally experiencing problems; and one of the major
problems is that of communication. He believed that the Philippine News has helped
to close the communications gap not only in San Francisco but throughout the United
States.
Charles Stuhr, Attorney for Benard A. Haas, owner of property at 1606 27th
Avenue, submitted a petition which had originally been signed by a number of property
owners in the area in opposition to the subject application. He also submitted
photographs of the three other corners at the intersection on 27th Avenue and Lawton
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 12 - FEBRUARY 7, 1974
Street, emphasizing that they are occupied by residential uses. He stated that
his clients had no desire whatsoever to put the applicant out of business; however,
they felt that he should be required to relocate his commercial activities to
another area which is zoned properly for the use. Insofar as the petition which he
had circulated in opposition to the application contained the signatures of 757.,
of the property owners in the area, he acknowledged that there was an apparent con-
flict between his petition and the ones which had been submitted by Mr. Esclamado.
However, he emphasized that the subject neighborhood is not a commercial area; and
he stated that his clients wished to stop the type of creeping commercialism repre-
sented by the present use of the subject building. Finally, he stated that it was
his opinion that the Commission could not legally approve the subject application.
In conclusion, he asked individuals who were present in opposition to the applica-
tion to stand; and approximately 5 people responded.
President Newman remarked that the ground floor of the premises of the subject
property had apparently been used for commercial purposes since prior to 1960; and
he asked Mr. Stuhr if his clients were opposed to the legal non-conforming use on
the ground floor or if they were only concerned about the commercial activities
taking place on the second floor of the building. Mr. Stuhr replied that his
clients were opposed to the applicant's proposal to reclassify the property from
R-3 to C-2 since such a change of zone would allow the entire building to be used
for commercial purposes.
President Newman then asked if residents of the neighborhood had been dis-
satisfied when the second floor of the building was used for residential purposes.
Mr. Stuhr replied that he had not heard of any complaints of that sort.
President Newman then pointed out that the first floor of the building could
continue to be used for commercial purposes even if the subject application were
to be disapproved.
Commissioner Rueda indicated that members of the Commission had visited the
subject property on a field trip. He stated that they were sympathetic with the
applicant's request; however, since re-zoning of the property as requested might
constitute "spot zoning" and might therefore be illegal, he felt that the Commission
should ask for an opinion from the City Attorney regarding its legal authority
before taking action on the application.
Commissioner Ritchie, having studied the petitions which had been submitted by
Mr. Esclamado and Mr. Stuhr, confirmed that a number of individuals who had signed
a petition in opposition to the application on January 25 had also signed a petition
in support of the application on February 3. The situation was obviously confusing
in nature; and, under the circumstances, he felt that the Commission should look
further into the matter and seek the advice of the City Attorney before taking
action on the application.
John McBride, owner of property at 1566 27th Avenue, stated that he had lived
in the area since 1931; and he advised the Commission that this was the second
occasion on which someone had tried to change the zoning of the subject property.
He stated that he had no objection to anyone living in the block; but he did object
to introduction of commercial zoning which would inevitably change the character
of the neighborhood.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 13 - FEBRUARY 7, 1974
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, stated that a determination as to
whether a specific re-zoning situation constitutes "spot zoning" can properly be
made only by the courts; and he doubted that the City Attorney would be willing
to venture an opinion on whether approval of the subject application by the
Commission would constitute "spot zoning." Under the circumstances, he believed
that both his recommendation and the Commission's action would have to be based
solely on the merits of the case as presented. Furthermore, while petitions often
have an influence on the recommendations of the staff, he felt that other factors
were more important to the matter presently under consideration. He remarked that
most of the properties in the vicinity of the subject site are developed with low
density residential buildings; and he indicated that reclassification of the subject
property to C-2 would permit uncontrolled commercial intrusion into the existing
residential area which would inevitably reduce the existing residential character
and amenities of the neighborhood. Furthermore, reclassification of a single parcel
of property to R-2 would constitute a "spot zone," an action of questionable legal-
ity. He stated that the applicant had not demonstrated any way in which public
necessity, convenience, or general welfare would benefit from the requested reclassi-
fication of the property; and he emphasized that the legally existing non-conforming
use on the ground floor of the property could continue until April 27, 1981, even
if the zoning of the property were to remain unchanged. For these reasons, he
recommended that the application be disapproved.
The Director stated that he realized that some of the residents of the area
would not object to continuation of the present use of both floors of the building
on the subject property. However, if the property were to be re-zoned to C-2, the
property could be used for any of the commercial activities permitted in that zoning
district, many of which could have a severe detrimental effect on the neighborhood.
In addition, C-2 zoning of the subject property would create a transitional zone
under which other properties in the vicinity would be permitted to be developed to
R-3.5 standards or to be used as private clubs or offices.
Commissioner Porter stated that she was somewhat confused about the discussion
of the term "spot zone." While she had always understood that "spot zoning" was
anathema to planners and City Planning Commissions, she had never been aware that
"spot zoning" is illegal. The Director confirmed that the Commission has a legal
right to create "spot zone"; however, if a court should determine that a specific
case of "spot zoning" has given a special benefit to an individual or to a small
group of people to the detriment of others, the action of the Commission might be
reversed.
Commissioner Ritchie stated that he would nevertheless like to obtain the
advice of the City Attorney before taking action on the subject application; and,
therefore, he moved that the matter be taken under advisement until the advice of
the City Attorney has been received. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Rueda.
Commissioner Fleishhacker stated that he doubted that the City Attorney would
render an opinion as to whether "spot zoning" in this specific instance would be
legal; and, as a result, he questioned the desirability of postponing action on the
application.
MINUTES OF THE REGU1AR MEETING - 14 - FEBRUARY 7, 1974
Commissioner Rueda pointed out that the applicant renders a unique service
to the Filipino community by publishing the Philippine News on a non-profit basis;
and, therefore, he felt that the Commission should determine whether there is any
way in which it could legally permit the present use of the building to continue.
President Newman asked if the Commission could grant Conditional Use authori-
zation for continued use of the second story of the building by the Philippine News.
Mr. Steele replied in the negative.
Commissioner Rueda stated that it was his opinion that the applicant had
demonstrated a public necessity for continuation of the use.
The Director stated that Commissioner Rueda should vote for the requested
change of zone if he felt that the applicant had, in fact, demonstrated a public
necessity for continuation of the use on the subject property.
Commissioner Rueda asked if such action would be legal. Mr. Steele replied
that approval of the application by the Commission would probably be reversed if
the issue were to be taken to the courts.
Commissioner Fleishhacker emphasized that no one on the Commission or on the
staff of the Department of City Planning had objected to the publication of the
Philippine News. The issue before the Commission concerned the proper location
for the offices of that newspaper; and it was his opinion that space must be avail-
able elsewhere in the city which would adequately fulfill the needs of the newspaper
without violating the law.
President Newman pointed out that the newspaper is not printed on the premises.
The building merely houses the editorial staff of the newspaper. He indicated that
he thought that it was somewhat unfair that the City Planning Code would permit
seven people to live on the premises but that it would not permit seven people to
sit in the building.
When the question was called, the Commission voted 6-1 to take this matter
under advisement until the advice of the City Attorney has been received. Commis-
sioners Farrell, Mellon, Newman, Porter, Ritchie and Rueda voted "Aye"; Commissioner
Fleishhacker voted "no."
CU74.1 - SUTTER STREET, SOUTH LINE, 137.5 FEET EAST OF BUCHANAN STREET
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR A PHILANTHROPIC INSTITUTION TO
SERVE AS THE OFFICES OF THE JAPANESE AMERICAN CITIZENS LEAGUE
IN AN R-4 DISTRICT
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director -Implementation (Zoning Administrator),
referred to land use and zoning maps to describe the subject property which is a
rectangular lot with a 34.375-foot frontage on Sutter Street and a depth of 101
feet for a total area of 3,471.9 square feet. The property is presently occupied
by a building which houses a book warehouse, the office of the Oriental Cultural
Book Company, and three dwelling units. The subject application had been filed by
the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency on behalf of the Japanese American Citizens
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 15 - FEBRUARY 7, 1974
League which proposed to construct a three-story building on the site to house the
offices of the national headquarters of that organization. No off-street parking
would be provided on the subject site; however, parking for the proposed facility
would be provided by the Nihonmachi Parking Corporation facility, which is located
at the rear of the property. In conclusion, Mr. Steele stated that the proposed
structure had been designed to harmonize in scale and general appearance with
adjacent Victorian residential structures.
Richard Kono, representing the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, introduced
David E. Ushio, Executive Director of the National Japanese American Citizens
LeagUe. Mr. Ushio stated that the proposed facility would be the first national
headquarters building to be constructed for his organization during its 45-year
existence. A number of cities had vied to become the home of the national head-
quarters building; however, San Francisco has been chosen overwhelmingly for the
honor.
Commissioner Fleishhacker, noting that the subject block has some rather nice
"victorian" houses, asked if the proposed building would be compatible with those
structures. Mr. Ushio replied that he believed that the proposed building would
be compatible with the victorian buildings in the area.
Noboru Nakamura, architect for the applicant, stated that the proposed building
would have bay windows ; and he believed that it would blend well with other buildings
in the area. He advised the Commission that the proposed building would be modest
in scale, costing a total of $250,000 to be paid for with funds collected nationally.
President Newman stated that it was his opinion that very sensitive architec-
tural treatment would be needed to assure that the proposed building will conform
with other building in the area.
No one else was present in the audience to speak in favor or in opposition
to the subject application.
Mr. Steele remarked that the proposed building would consolidate needed com-
munity services, which are now offered in separate locations, in one building;
and he noted that the proposed use is a permitted use under the P^e development Plan
for the Western Addition. He also believed that the proposed building would be
compatible with the neighborhood. For those reasons , he recommended that the
application be approved subject to specific conditions which were contained in a
draft resolution which he had prepared for consideration by the Commission.
After discussion it was moved by Commissioner Farrell, seconded by Commissioner
Mellon and carried unanimously that the draft resolution be adopted as City Planning
Commission Resolution No. 7143 and that the application be approved subject to the
conditions which had been recommended by Mr. Steele.
At this point in the proceedings Commissioner Mellon absented himself from
the meeting room for the remainder of the meeting.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 16 - FEBRUARY 7, 1974
CU74.2 - 156-162 GUERRERO STREET, WEST LINE, 105 FEET SOUTH OF CLINTON
PARK - REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 7043 TO EXTEND THE
TERM OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PARKING LOT FROM JULY 12, 1975,
TO DECEMBER 31, 1905
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director- Implementation (Zoning Administrator),
referred to land use and zoning maps to describe the subject property. He stated
that the Commission, on July 12, 1973, had approved a Conditional Use Application
to permit the subject property to be used as a parking lot for storage of auto-
mobiles being serviced by S & C Motors. At that time, one of the conditions which
was established by the Commission had limited the authorization to a period of two
years. The new application which had been filed by the applicant requested that
the authorization be extended to a term of 12 years ending on December 31, 1985.
Bruce Goecker, representing S & C Motors, indicated that he was present to
answer any questions which might be raised by members of the Commission.
Mr. Harrison, Controller for Mary's Help Hospital, owner of the subject prop-
erty, advised the Commission that more than 300 proposals had been made for sale
of the subject site; however, in spite of its efforts, the hospital had received
no "nibbles" whatsoever. However, S & C Motors had agreed to purchase the property
if the Commission would be willing to extend the Conditional Use Authorization as
requested.
Commissioner Fleishhacker asked if he were correct in understanding that no
one had even offered the hospital as much as $1.00 for the property. Mr. Harrison
replied in the affirmative.
Elba Tuttle, Chairperson of the Mission Coalition Organization Planning Com-
mittee, read and submitted the following prepared statement:
"My name is Elba Montes Tuttle, and I am the chairperson of the
Mission Coalition Organization Planning Committee. I am here to assist
the City Planning Commission to reject the application of S & C Ford
for an extension of its Conditional Use permit for a parking lot.
"MCO opposes the granting of this permit, which would freeze land
non zoned for people's housing into a home for 43 cars until 1985.'
'Much of the Inner Mission is zoned for commercial use. In fact,
about one-half of the housing units in the neighborhood — 10,000 homes,
flats and apartments and 3000 hotel rooms — are located in industrial or
commercial zones. Since 1960, more than 125 residential buildings in
these zones have been destroyed, replaced by stores, gas stations or
offices. The MCO is concerned about this commercial encroachment on
our housing. We believe that granting this long term permit would be
perpetuating a commercial use in a residential part of the Mission,
on a piece of property non zoned R-4 for housing.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 17 - FEBRUARY 7, 1974
"Last fall, the Planning Commission granted S & C Ford a three-year
permit. The MCO did not oppose that short-term use, because we knew the
Planning Department was preparing a three-year study of residential zoning
in San Francisco's neighborhoods. Using the land for parking for three
years during your study would have kept the owners from building expensive
studio apartments, which Mission residents do not need. The three year
study--and the Interim Zoning controls which just passed unanimously by
the supervisors — would give us a breathing space while MCO completes its
housing policies for the community.
Instead of parking MCO would like to see a mini -park or some other
kind of open space on that land, and on any other vacant land in the
Mission. We will work with the Recreation-Parks Department to see if
land which will be fallow during your zoning study can be used temporarily
for recreation. We realize it is too late for this particular site, but
we hope the commission will look with favor upon future MCO proposals for
more open space in the Mission, an urgent need cited in your own 1970
Urban Design Study.
"in conclusion, I would like to compliment the commission for develop-
ing the Interim Zoning controls. The MCO believes the three-year study
will be beneficial for the Mission District and for all other neighbor-
hoods in San Francisco which are trying to improve life for present residents.
"We believe the granting of an additional twelve years of commercial
automobile parking on residential property will be contrary to the results
of your long term study. However, the MCO knows it is against the best
interests of the community, and we urge you to reject this application."
Ann Gregoric, representing people who reside in the immediate vicinity of the
subject property, stated that there are three parking lots located within one and
a half blocks of the property. She advised the Commission that residents of the
area do not want to be surrounded by "wall-to-wall parking"; and, in view of the
scarcity of land in San Francisco, she felt that the subject property should be
used in a way which would help to fulfill the goals of the community*
Jorgen Neilson, 85 Pv.amona Street, stated that parking lots have been messing
up the subject neighborhood for the last 30 years; and he indicated that he was
opposed to them.
Steve Jacobi, representing the Mission Planning Council, stated that he agreed
with remarks which had been made by previous speakers in opposition to the appli-
cation. He remarked that the existing parking lot cannot be used by people residing
in the neighborhood; and he advised the Commission that most of the people in the
area feel that there must be a better use for the property.
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, remarked that approval of the 10-year
extension of the Conditional Use Authorization would have the same effect as
reclassifying the property to a commercial "spot zone" in a residential area. He
noted that the subject property is well removed from the commercial use which it
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 18 - FEBRUARY 7, 1974
serves ; and he pointed out that abundant commercially-zoned properties are
available along Valencia Street, one block east of the subject property. He stated
that the parking lot interrupts the residential character of Guerrero Street, that
it cannot be adequately screened, and that it is not in conformity with Master Plan
policies calling for intensification of residential usage in the subject neighbor-
hood and provision of needed family housing. He stated that the applicant had
demonstrated no public need or substantial benefit to the public to be derived from
the extension of time requested nor that such an extension would either be necessary
or desirable at the intensity or location proposed. Therefore, he recommended that
the application be disapproved.
After discussion it was moved by Commissioner Rueda, seconded by Commissioner
Fleishhacker and carried 5-1 that Resolution No. 7144 be adopted and that the sub-
ject application be disapproved. Commissioners Farrell, Fleishhacker, Newman,
Porter, and Rueda voted "Aye"; Commissioner Ritchie voted "No."
CU73.64 - 1200 COLUMBUS AVENUE, NORTHEAST CORNER OF BAY STREET.
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR A PARKING LOT FOR APPROXIMATELY
30 AUTOMOBILES; IN A C-2 DISTRICT AND IN THE NORTHERN WATER-
FRONT SPECIAL USE DISTRICT NO. 2. (POSTPONED FROM MEETING
OF JANUARY 10, 1974)
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director-Implementation (Zoning Administrator),
referred to land use and zoning maps to describe the subject property which is an
irregular corner parcel with an area of 8,005 square feet. The property, which
is presently vacant, was formerly occupied by a gasoline service station; and,
since removal of the station, the lot has been used as a parking lot in violation
of the City Planning Code. A notice to cease the violation was sent to the appli-
cant on July 5, 1973.
Gerald Roullier, Vice-President of Savoy Auto Parhs and Garages, Inc., stated
that the lot is owned by the Villa Roma Hotel who had given his firm permission to
operate the existing parking lot on a day-to-day basis. He stated that his firm
wished to continue operation of the parking lot; however, since their arrangement
with the owner of the property could be terminated at any time, they were reluctant
to make any capital improvements on the property. In conclusion, he stated that
he assumed that members of the public would still continue to park on the property
for free if the commercial operation were to be removed.
Commissioner Fleishhacker observed that the property could not be used by the
general public if it were to be fenced by the owner.
President Newman asked what type of improvements Savoy Auto Parts would be
willing to make on the site. Mr. Roullier replied that very little expenditure
for improvements would be justified given the "day-to-day" nature of their lease.
If nothing more were done than paving the lot, the estimated cost of such a project
would be approximately $3,000.00.
No one else was present to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the subject
application.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING • -19- FEBRUARY 7, ,1974
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, stated that a parking lot on the
subject site, if probably design d, developed, and operated, would result
in little, if any, vehicular tra-ific conflicts and would adversely affect
pedestrian movement. He indicated that there is a need for additional parking
in this particular portion of the Northern Waterfront and he believed that the
proposed parking lot, if appropriately screened and landscaped, would be
compatible with development in the area. Therefore, he recommended that the
application be approved subject to seven specific conditions which were contained
in a draft resolution which he had prepared for consideration by the Commission.
The conditions read as follows:
1. Final preliminary plans for a parking lot including
landscaping, screening, signing, and circulation
shall be developed in consultation with the Depart-
ment of City Planning. The landscaping and parking
layout on said plans shall be in general conformity
with the preliminary plan marked "Exhibit A" and
filed with this application.
2. Final plans shall have the approval of the Department
of City Planning prior to the filing for any building
permits for the site, and all development on the site
shall generally conform with these plans.
3. Prior to commencement of the parking lot operation,
all landscaping, screening, paving and signs speci-
fied by the approved final plans shall be installed
and approved as complying with the above conditions.
Said landscaping shall be continuously maintained in
a healthy and attractive condition as long as the
site is used for open parking of automobiles.
4. Signs controlling access and egress for the parking
lot, to minimize tr?ffic conflicts, shall be
developed in consultation with the Department of
City Planning.
5. Artificial lighting of low intensity shall be provided
and shall be deflected downward.
6. Signs, if any, shall be limited to one non-projecting
identifying sign not more than 16 square feet in area.
No general advertising signs shall be permitted.
7. The authorization for a parking lot shall be for a
period not to exceed two years from the effective
date of this resolution provided, however, that upon
review by the City Planning Commission not less
than three months prior to the end of the initial
two year period, the Commission may extend the
temporary yse of this facility for such a period as
it may deem appropriate.
I
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 2 0- FEBRUARY' 7 >. 1974
Commissioner Fleishhacker assumed that the owner of the subject property would
inevitably be responsible for installation of the improvements required by the
conditions contained in the draft resolution; and he asked if the applicant or
the owner would be willing to abide by the conditions which had been recommended
by the Director. Mr. Roullier replied in the negative.
The Director stated that he would have to recommend that the subject
application be disapproved if the applicant had no intention of complying with
the conditions which he had recommended.
Commissioner Ritchie questioned whether it would be feasible to operate a
parking lot on the site unless the property were paved and provided with a drainage
system. Mr. Roullier replied that the property has a drainage system; however,
instead of paving, the lot is covered with heavy gravel.
President Newman, noting that approval of the application would be meaning-
less if the applicant had to intention of complying with the conditions which had
been proposed, aaked why the applicant had even bothered to bring the matter before
the Commission. Mr. Roullier stated that the reason for filing the application
was to determine whether the parking operation could continue in its present form
without any improvements being required.
President Newman then remarked that the present use would be in violation of
the City Planning Code if the subject application were to be disapproved by the
Commission. Mr. Steele indicated that the use would also be in violation of the
City Planning Code if the application were to be approved and if the conditions
established by the Commission were not met.
Commissioner Prorter expressed doubt that any laws exist viiich would require
the owner of the property to fence the site if the commercial operation were to
be terminated; and, as a result, she believed that automobiles would probably
be parked on the property in any case. Mr. Steele stated that use of the property
for parking without Conditional Use Authorization would be in violation of the
City Planning Code; and the owner of the property would be responsible for the
violation. When such violations have occurred in the past, the City Attorney
has occasionally required that fencing be installed.
The Director noted that the Commission had established conditions similar to
those which he was now recommending when it recently acted to approve a smaller
parking lot at Northpoint and Larkin Streets.
Commissioner Ritchie stated that the owner of the property would have to make
some improvements on the site if he wished to derive any revenue from the lot;
and, therefore, he moved that the application be approved subject to the conditions
which had been recommended by the Director. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Fleishhacker. When the question was called, the Commission voted
unanimously to adopt the draft resolution as City Planning Commission Resolution
No. 7145 and to approve the application subject to the conditions which had been
recommended by the Director.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 21- - FEBRUARY 7, 1974
CU73.70 - 101, 109, and 115 SHIELDS STREET, SOUTHWEST CORNER
OF BRIGHT STREET.
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR A 'NURSERY SCHOOL - CHILD
CARE CENTER: IN AN R-l DISTRICT
(UNDER. ADVISEMENT FROM MEETING OF JANUARY 17, 1974)
R. S.pencer Steele, Assistant Director-Implementation (Zoning Administrator),
remarked that this matter had been taken under advisement on two occasions to give
the applicant additional time to find a more suitable location for the nursery
school. He indicated that the staff of the Department of City Planning had
previously recommended that the application be disapproved.
John Laurant, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Community Children's
Theatre submitted the following letter which was then sumaarized by President
Newman:
" We, the Community Children Theatre, Inc. are asking the
commission to grant our request for a conditional use
permit in order that we may continue with our dedicated
efforts to serve and enrich our community by providing
activities that will benefit all persons involved (parents
and non-parents of this oommunity included).
" We have no doubt, that if we are afforded the opportunity
to continue our services, that we can achieve through a
very effective and diplomatic approach, a harmony in
working relationships with all concerned individuals
within our community.
" We have been diligently seeking a more acceptable location
but time has not been sympathetic to our cause. Therefore
we firmly request your patients (sic ) and acceptance of our
attempts during these depressing times and economic
struggles, not only for our members, but for the nation
as well.
" In view of the economic situation that we are presently
involved in, we feel there is a desperate need for facilities
such as ours in this area. Because we are located in the
community, this means using less gasoline to get to and
from the center. In addition, our fees are based on low
income families, therefore aiding in the elimination of
people from the welfare roles, who without such services
would lose their jobs, or could not afford to work because
of the lack of adequate child care facilities at a cost
they can afford.
"Our program also enables those welfare recipients who have
been exempted by laws (welfare mothers with children under
six years of age are exempted from training programs and
the job market) the opportunity to become involved in
training programs leading to gainful employment and self sufficiency.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 22 - FEBRUARY 7,1974
"These people and the community need us and we need the cooperation
of the City Planning Commission in granting our request as well as
this city needs every effort from its citizens to share in the
elimination of its economic burdens."
Mr. Laurant stated that other residential buildings on the street are used
for commercial activities such as a barber shop and a catering service; and,
under the circumstances, he did not understand why the people involved with
those activities were opposed to the nursery school.
Mrs. Vermeil Hines, 114 Shields street, denied that she is running a catering
service from her house; however, she indicated that she would be willing to
prepare meals for other people at their homes. She stated that associates of the
nursery school had been most abusive to residents of the neighborhood who had
objected to the subject conditional use application; however, she advised the
Commission that home owners with children in the area continued to be opposed to
continuation of the nursery school on the subject property.
Mrs. Ferrell, also a resident of the neighborhood, Confirmed that she and
other neighbors continued *-o be opposed to the application for the reasons which
had been stated in the petition which had been submitted to the Commission on
January 10.
Commissioner Fleishhacker stated that he was sympathetic with applicants'
efforts to provide nursery school care for the subject neighborhood. However,
he indicated that he had visited the neighborhood again and was convinced that
the subject property is not an appropriate location for the facility. He hoped
that the nursery school could find a more appropriate location; but he felt that*
the subject application should be disapproved.
After further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Fleishhacker, seconded
by Commissioner Porter, and carried unanimously that Resolution No. 7146 be adopted
and that the subject application be disapproved.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted ,
Lynn E. Pio
Secretary
roctr-rrxr? dept.
£a: i 'ceo
public ubrary
san francisco
city planning commission
Minutes and Summary of the Regular Meeting held Thursday, February 14,
1974.
The City Planning Commission met pursuant to notice on Thursday,
February 14, 1S74, at 2:30 p.m. in Room 282, City Hall.
PRESENT: Walter S. Newman, President; Mrs. Charles B. Porter, Vice-
President; John C. Farrell, Mortimer Fleishhacker, Thomas
J. Mellon, John Ritchie, and Hector E. Rueda, members of
the City Planning Commission.
ABSENT: None.
The staff of rbc Department of City Planriig was represented by Allan
B. Jacobs, Dire- .or of Planning; Robert Passmore, Planner V (Zoning); Selina
Bendix, Environmental Review Officer; Alec Bash, Planner III; Marie Zeller,
Planner III - Administrative ; Glenda Skiffer, Planner II; Moira So, Planner II;
and Lynn E. Pio, Secretary.
Larry Liebert represented the San Francisco Chronicle; George Rhodes
represented the San Francisco Examiner.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved by Commissioner Fleishhacker, seconded by Commissioner
Rueda, and carried unanimously that the minutes of the meetings of November 1,
1973, and January 17, 24, and 31, 1974, be approved as submitted.
CURRENT MATTERS
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, informed the Commission that he
had appeared before the Fire, Safety, and Police Committee of the Board of
Supervisors earlier in the afternoon to participate in that Committee's con-
sideration of the Transit Preferential Streets Program.
The Director advised the Commission of changes which had been made in
the proposed Open Space Acquisition and Development Fund Charter Amendment
by the Legislative and Personnel Committee of the Board of Supervisors last
Thursday. After discussion, the Commission requested President Newman to
appear before the Board of Supervisors at the appropriate time to request
that body to reinstate the original ratio of 75% expenditure for acquisition
and 257» expenditure for maintenance and development instead of the G57o-15%
ratio which had been proposed by the Legislative and Personnel Committee.
By the terms of the proposed Charter amendment the ratio of expenditure would
be fixed only for the first 5 years of the program.
The Director informed the Commission that he had taped an interview
for television Channel 9 on the impact of BART in the Mission district. He
indicated that the program i/ill be shown on February 14 or February 15 on
the "magazine" section of "Newsroom".
MINUTES AND SUMMARY OF REGULAR MEETING - 2 - FEBRUARY 14, 1974
Commissioner Fleishhacher inquired about the present status of the
Comprehensive Residential Zoning Study. The Director replied that a work
program for the study is being formulated; and he anticipated that the study
will be underway by July 1.
Commissioner Fleishhacher then asked if it were true that the property
occupied by the offices of the Department of City Planning at 100 Larkin
Street is being considered as a possible site for the new Performing Arts
Center. The Director replied in the affirmative.
At 2:55 p.m. President Newman announced a five minute recess. The Com-
mission reconvened at 3:00 p.m. and proceeded with hearing of the remainder
of the agenda.
EE73.224 - APPEAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION BY TIE DEPARTMENT OF
CITY PLANNING RELATING TO THE VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR
CONVERSION FOR THE NOTRE DAME HOSPITAL BUILDING AT
1590 BROADWAY.
Alec Bash, Planner III, summarized the case report which had been pre-
pared for the Commission on this matter. The case report is available in
the files of the Department of City Planning.
The Commission then heard from members of the audience, as follows:
Michael S. Percherer, representing the appellant and the Broadway-Polk
Residents and Merchants Association; Linda Ifong, Co-chairman of the Chinatown
Coalition for Better Housing; Mrs. Hui, representing a group of elderly people
from Chinatown; Sam Yuen, Director of Self Help for the Elderly; Sam Duval,
operator of businesses located at 2200 Poll; Street, 1906 Polk Street, and 2323
Polk Street; John Duke, a resident on Van Ness Avenue; Jim Cahill, operator
of a business at 2155 Polk Street; Dick Jorach, a resident of the area; John
H. Tolan, Jr., Mayor Alio to' s Deputy for Development; William Rosso, repre-
senting the M*i^in Development Corporation; Gerald D. Fox, representing
DeLe"T--> cather and Company; Bill Jurvas, manager of an apartment building in
the vicinity of the subject site; Calvin Vfelch, a resident of the Haight-
Ashbury District; and Alice Barkley, a resident on Pacific Avenue between
Polk and Larkin Street.
After discussion, it was moved by Commission Mellon, seconded by Commis-
sioner Porter and carried unanimously that Resolution No. 7147 be adopted
finding that the variances requested for the proposed project could not have
a substantial effect on the environment; thereby affirming the Negative
Declaration filed by the Department of City Planning. As a result, no envi-
ronmental impact report will be required.
MINUTES AND SUMMARY OF REGULAR MEETING - 3 - FEBRUARY 14, 1974
A standard tape cassette recording of the proceedings is available in
the files of the Department of City Planning for public listening or tran-
scription.
The meeting v/as adjourned at 4:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynn E. Pio
Secretary
<|">U
SAN FRANCISCO
, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
DOCUMENTS
APR 1 7 1974
The City Planning Commission met pursuant to notice on Thursday, February 21,
Minutes of the Regular meeting held Thursday, February 21, 1974.
PRESENT: Walter S. Newman, President; Mrs. Charles B. Porter, Vice-President;
John C. Farrell, Mortimer Fleishhacker, John Ritchie, and Hector E.
Rueda, members of the City Planning Commission.
ABSENT: Thomas J. Mellon, member of the City Planning Commission.
The staff of the Department of City Planning was represented by Allan B.
Jacobs, Director of Planning; Robert Passmore, Planner V (Zoning); Ronald Jonash,
City Planning Coordinator; Richard Gamble, Planner IV; Linda Ferbert, Planner II;
Lynn E. Pio, Secretary.
Larry Liebert represented the San Francisco Chronicle; Donald Canter
represented the San Francisco Examiner; Carol Kroot represented the San Francisco
Progress; and Sanna Craig represented the San Francisco Bay Guardian. Television
Channel 4 was also represented.
Because of the large number of people present who were interested in the
proposed condominium subdivision of Parkmerced, President Newman called that item
out of order.
R118.73.26 - CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION
OF PARKMERCED.
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, made the following introductory
comments:
"The matter before you is a referral from the Director
of Public Works for a report, putsuaut to cne Charter, as
to the master plan conformity of the subdivision of Parkmerced
into a condominium. Condominiums are a form of subdivision
and are regulated under the State Map Act.
'This is not a public hearing. The C.P.C. is asked for its
recommendations, unuer Doth the State Act and the City Charter
the scope of review includes a number of items including consistency
of the subdivision with applicable ordinances and 'general
or specific plans' of the city.
'• Planning Commission Master Plan Referral is Initiated
by the Director of Public Works transmittal letter which
cites a cut off date under State law for approval, conditional
. ■. ■■■ I
-
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -2 - FEBRUARY 21 1974
approval or disapproval. Failure to act by this time
constitutes automatic approval. The date for Parkmerced's
Map was extended with permission of the subdivider from
Jan. 31 to March 1 In order to try to resolve conflicts
between -map submitted and our Master Plan policies and
previously approved plans for Parkmeroejd. C.P.C. must
report before March 1st or get the subdividers written-
consent for another time extension.
"The subdivider, if unhappy with C.P.C. conditions or
disapproval, may appeal to 'governing body' (B.O.S.).
Otherwise Supervisors do not see tentative map.
"The final map is prepared within one year and is
submitted to DPW. If conforms to approved Tentative
Map it goes to Supervisors for approval. This is usually
a perfunctory matter. If the final differs substantially
from approved tentative it comes back to C.P.C. for review
again."
The Director then read his report on this matter to the Commission as follows:
"The Director of Public Works has forwarded the tentative
map for the subdivision of Parkmerced into a condominium for
Master Plan referral.
"Parkmerced was developed by the Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company, according to a plan approved by the Planning Commission
in June, 1941. In 1948 the Planning Commission approved revisions
to the project's plan, incorporating eleven thirteen-story towers
and development of the remaining vacant parts of the site.
"Several years ago Metropolitan Life sold the buildings to
Parkmerced; Corporation in the first part of a two-stage trans-
action. Parkmerced Corporation now proposes to turn the rental
project into a condominium.
"Parkmerced Corporation's tentative map indicates several
exclusions from the condominium: the playfield at Font and Lake
Merced Boulevards, the shopping center next to 19th Avenue and
the undeveloped nursery and recreational reserve on Brotherhood
Way near Junipero Serra Boulevard. Parkmerced Corporation pro-
poses to exclude them from the common property to be owned by
the condominium purchasers, but rather proposes to hold them
separately for possible development.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -3 - FEBRUARY 21. 1974
'The shopping center Is zoned C-l and the recreational
areas are R-3. If they are excluded from the condominium,
residential development could follow. At R-3. 5 density, the
2.76-acre shopping center could be developed with up to 201
dwelling units. The 6.8-acre playground with R-3 zoning could
be developed with up to 370 units and the 7.8-acre nursery
and recreational reserve, also R-3, would allow 425, a grand
total of 996 units. Compared with the 3483 units in the
development, this would be an increase of 29 percent.
Playgrounds
"Metropolitan Life agreed to provide at least 11.4
acres of playgrounds, exclusive of the small interior block
play yards or passive park area. The 6.8-acre parcel was
developed as a playground, but the reserve area was not,
although promotional literature indicated an intent to
build tennis courts there. (The City's standard for play-
grounds used on Parkmarced was 1.2 acres per 1000 population.
The national 'standard' is 3 acres per 1000. At Parkmerced's
current population (6700) 8.0 and 20.0 acres would be required
respectively, to satisfy these standards.)
"The subdividers argue that the recreational facilities
aren't needed; that the tenants do not use them. This could
be caused by management policies or provision of the wrong
type of facilities for the resident population, as well as
the peripheral location, compounded by congestion at San
Francisco State. The first two factcr-.s are correctable by
the future property owners, and utilization of the reserve
site could compensate some for the disadvantages of the
playground location.
"The plan for Recreation and Open Space Policy 4 of
the city-wide system is to ' require usable open space in
new residential development. Encourage creation of recre.-
ational space in existing development.' To require re-
tention of these recreational and open space areas is
consistent with the plan. To do otherwise would be,
simply, to provide a potential windfall for the new
developers.
Shopping Center
"The shopping center, also proposed to be excluded
from the condominium is zoned C-l, which permits res-
idential development as a principle use.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -4- FEBRUARY 21, 1974
"The subdividers claim that exclusion is necessary because
a condominium purchaser cannot own revenue -producing facilities
without becoming a form of land investor rather than a mere
homeowner. This complicates his tax status and makes condominium
purchase less competitive. An alternate possibility is that the
shopping center could be a condominium unit owned by a commercial
investor rather than held as common property of the condominium
owners. This arrangement is being utilized for the large parking
garages, and will be explained in further detail. If the center
cannot be a unit in the condominium, some form of covenants or
similar device should be created to guarantee the retention of
this convenience facility for the neighborhood.
"The need for neighborhood shopping is recognized in the
Comprehensive Plan for Residence. This facility is indicated
on the Generalized Residential Land Use Plan.
' Parking
"Parkmerced has less than a one-to-one ratio of off-street
parking to dwelling units (3295/3483), but due to the generous
amount of street parking (in bays) there has always been a large
surplus of vacant spaces in the three parking garages. Tenants
can rent space in the garages, but many find street parking more
conveniently located as well as cheaper. The garage operators
have long rented much of this surplus to non-residents and auto
dealers.
"All of the 1653 carport spaces will be sold with garden
apartments, but 147 of the 1800 garden units will nnt have
garage spaces. For the 1683 tower units and the garageless
garden apartments, the commercially operated garages have 1564
stalls and 78 parking lot stalls. The garages will be separate
condominium units, not commonly owned, and project owners will
have first priority in renting space.
Housing Issues
"In addition to the issue of the existing recreation areas
and open space, several other areas of concern related to the
Master Plan have arisen in communications with the Human Rights
Commission and the Parkmerced Tenants Organization. These areas
of concern are basically:
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -5- FEBRUARY 21, 1974
-Potential Displacement/Relocation
-The Supply of Low- to Moderate-Income Housing
-Discrimination and Open Housing
-Citizen Participation
"1) Displacement /Relocation
a) Objective 1, policy 3 of the Residence
Element of the Comprehensive Plan:
1 Improve services to rehouse displaced
households and avoid displacing any
house-hold until adequate relocation
housing is available;'
b) Strategy Element 9 of the ' Housing
Strategy' recently endorsed by the City
Planning Commission: 'Minimizing dis-
placement of residents resulting from
public and private action, and providing
adequate relocation services when dis-
placement is unavoidable,'
"The concern related to these policies is that
Commission approval of too rapid a conversion from rental
to condominium units could cause large-scale displacement
of existing residents. This could, in turn, cause severe
hardship to some, since public relocation assistance would
not be available, and since many of the existing tenants
are elderly, have lower incomes, and may not be able to
purchase the condominiums. The applicant has projected
that approximately two-thirds of the existing residents
will not purchase the converted condominiums. Since the
majority of the units to be converted are two- to three-
bedroom units (representing 4.0 percent of all such units
in the city), the displacement problem may pose particular
hardship given the very low vacancy rate (about one percent
according to latest surveys) which exists for such units in
San Francisco.
"in response to these concerns, the applicant had in-
dicated that, based on past experience, the normal turnover
of tenant-occupied units in a project of this size will create
sufficient vacancies so that no evictions will be necessary.
Furthermore in order to reduce the need for evictions, the
applicant has not been filling vacancies in the development
for some time. A total of over 200 units are now vacant and
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -6- FEBRUARY 21, 1974
would be immediately available for resale. The applicant
has noted that initially sales will be made to existing res-
idents and to fill existing vacancies. The applicant has
also expressed a willingness to adopt procedures which could
defer any necessary evictions or rental increases in hardship
cases until the end of the projected conversion period. While
displacement, particularly if it were caused by forceable evic-
tion, remains a serious concern, based on the understanding above,
the proposed conversion would appear to be in conformity with
this City policy regarding the minimizing of displacement.
"2) The Supply of Low- to Moderate -Income Housing
Objective 3 of the Residence Element of the Compre-
hensive Plan: 'Provide maximum housing choice both
in the City and in the Bay Area, especially for minority
and low-income households.'
"The concern related to this policy is that conversion of
3500 rental units to condominium units in this part of the
city could have a significant impact on housing choice, partic-
ularly for minority and low-income households. Whether this
choice would be expanded or further constrained would depend
on the sales prices and procedures developed by the applicant.
The applicant has reported tentatively that sales prices will
range from $19,000 to $70,000 depending on size and present
rent level, that the applicant will require a 25 percent down
payment, and that financing will not be available through the
developer. This range of sales prices indicated that economic
integration of the project will be encouraged and that housing
choice in the area of ownership could be expanded for some
income groups. While favorable financing terms through the
developer would be of further assistance in this regard, the
developer has indicated a willingness to work with local
financial institutions to provide flexible terms. However,
the presently anticipated 25 percent downpayment could pre-
clude purchase by many qualified buyers. This concern has
been discussed with the applicant, through counsel, and it is
hoped that more flexible financing provisions can be developed
which will encourage the participation of buyers who have not
yet accumulated sufficient savings to make a $5,000-$15,000
downpayment. If flexible financing provisions can be developed
the proposed conversion would be consistent with the objective
of maximizing housing choice.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -7 - FEBRUARY 21, \ 1974
"3) Discrimination and Open Housing
Objective 3, Policy 3 of the Residence Element of the
Comprehensive Plan: 'Work for Open Occupancy.1
"The concern related to this policy is that problems of
housing segregation and discrimination which developed under
a former ownership can be further eliminated during the
condominium conversion process. The U.S. Supreme Court has
ordered Parkmerced to integrate the project and the new owners
have agreed to an Affirmative Action.Program developed through
the courts to achieve this end. The program anticipated the
possibility of condominium conversion and set forth additional
requirements for advertising in minority publications; other
provisions of the court order apply equally to sales as well
as leasing activities by the owners.
4) Citizen Participation
Objective 5, Policy 2 of the Residence Element of the
Comprehensive Plan: 'Provide opportunities for citizen
involvement in planning and programming of local commu-
nity improvements.'
The concern relative to this policy is that Parkmerced
residents, numbering about 3500 households, be involved at
the earliest possible date in discussions with the new owners
on the condominium conversion procedure. The applicant has
indicated that State Real Estate Department interpretation of
State law precluded advertising until a public report had been
issued. The applicant had consequently not been working with
existing resident groups. Although California does not have a
law such as does New York State (which reportedly requires
approval of 35 percent of the existing residents before a
condominium conversion can be approved), it is our belief that
meetings between the applicant and existing residents could
help facilitate the transition to condominium ownership while
at the same time minimizing hardships for existing residents.
Our communications with the State Real Estate Department indi-
cate that these discussions can now proceed and, with the
understanding that they do, the proposed conversion would be
in conformity with the objective of citizen involvement.
"In addition to these concerns, it should be noted that
one of the nine strategy elements of the recently endorsed
'Housing Strategy1 Is to 'encourage increased owner occupancy
of housing,' To the extent that absentee ownership is dis-
discouraged in the sales procedures, this proposal would
clearly assist in the implementation of this strategy.**
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -8- FEBRUARY 21, 19?4
The Director then offered his recommendation on the matter to the Commission
as follows:
"It is recommended that the Director be authorized to
report that the tentative map for the Parkmerced Condominium
prepared by Kirker Chapman & Associates, dated December 1973,
is not in conformity with the Master Plan, unless:
"1. The playground in Block 7304 and the recreational
reserve along Brotherhood Way in Blocks 7331 and 7332 be
included as common property inside the condominium, and
"2. The shopping center in Block 7324 be included
within the condominium as a condominium unit or that the
subdividers record covenants worded to the satisfaction of
the Department of City Planning to guarantee the retention
of this as a shopping facility, and
"3. The applicant agrees to work, in good faith, with
the Human Rights Commission
-to assure that any necessary evictions or rental
increases (beyond those related to normal market forces)
are deferred until the last two years of the projected
condominium sales period;
-to develop feasible downpayment requirements and to
work with financial institutions on more favorable financing
terms so that households will be able to purchase units
with monthly housing costs comparable to January 1974 rent
levels;
-to immediately initiate discussions with tenants'
groups in the area to assure their participation in the
transition to condominium ownership;
-to assure that long-term and elderly residents will
not be evicted in any case, assuming their ability to pay
market rents.
"The Human Rights Commission will file periodic reports
regarding progress on these items."
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING - 9 - FEBRUARY 21, 1?74
Commissioner Porter remarked that the property occupied by Parkmerced was
previously zoned R-l; and she recalled that the City had permitted high-rise develop-
ment on the property with the understanding that open spaces would be provided and
and that they would be preserved. She asked if that prior agreement still obtains;
and, if so, she questioned the new developer's legal right to construct new
buildings on the open spaces.
The Director confirmed that the previous agreement was still binding; and it
was for that reason that he had recommended that the proposed condominium sub-
division would not be in conformity with the Master Plan unless the open spaces
were to be preserved.
Commissioner Fleishhacker, noting that the Director had recommended that
necessary evictions or rental increases be deferred until the last two years of
the projected condominium sales, inquired about the probable length of the sales
period. The Director replied that the sales period had been projected over a span
of five years.
Commissioner Ritchie inquired about the name of the applicant, the name of the
present owner of the Parkmerced property, and the place of residence of the owner.
The Director replied that the application had been filed by Helmsley-Spear
Inc. of New York City. He stated that it was his understanding that that firm
owns the buildings in Parkmerced and that the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
still owns the land which the buildings occupy. The Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company is in the process of selling the land to Helmsley-Spear Inc.; and it was
likely that the price of the land would vary depending upon the open space require-
ments established by the City.
Commissioner Farrell asked how the Director would define the words "long-term"
and "elderly" as used in the part of his recommendation which specified that the
applicant should work in good faith with the Human Rights Commission to assure
that long term and elderly residents will not be evicted in any case, assuming
their ability to pay market rates. The Director replied that he had purposely
avoided defining the terms because he did not know how many years of residence
or what age levels would be most relevant. He stated that he had added that
provision to bis recommendation because many of the telephone calls and letters
which had been received by the Department had raised the issue of the effect which
the location might have on elderly people. In his opinion, the issue of money was
probably a less relevant factor than the real trauma which elderly people might
suffer if they were to be evicted and forced to relocate.
Commissioner Farrell then observed that long-term and elderly residents might
constitute a majority of the tenants of Parkmerced. The Director acknowledged that
that was a possibility; and, if so, compliance with his recommendation might cause
real problems for the developer.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -10- FEBRUARY 21, £974
Marvin Morgenstein, attorney for the Parkmerced Corporation, confirmed that
Helmsley " Spear, Inc. is one of the owners of the Parkmerced Corporation. He also
advised the Commission that Harry Helmsley, the principal in Helmsley-Spaar, Inc,
of New York, owns other projects similar to Parkmerced, including Park Chester in
New York which has a total of 12,000 dwelling units. Addressing himself to the
recommendation which had been made by the Director, he stated that his clients
would be willing to include the playground in Block 7304 and the recreational
reserve along Brotherhood Way in Block 7331 and 7332 as common property inside the
condominium. He also indicated that his clients would have no objections to working
further with the staff to develop a covenant to assure that the shopping center
in Block 7324 would be retained. With regard to the other recommendations which
had been made by the Director, Mr. Morgenstein stated that he had met with the
staff of the Human Rights Commission; and he indicated that he would continue to
work with them in good faith. His client would be willing to initiate discussion
with tenant groups in the area to assure their participation in the transition to
condominium ownership; however, because condominium subdivisions are governed by
State law, those discussions cannot be initiated until permission is obtained from
the State Department of Real Estate. He indicated that he had spoken with a
representative of that agency yesterday and had been advised that the Parkmerced
Corporation could make an announcement of its intention to proceed with the
condominium subdivision but that it could not give people information concerning
prices, timing, or terms of purchase. The law would also prohibit the corporation
from making any offers to sell units until permission is given by the State. How-
ever, his client would be willing to initiate discussions with tenant groups when
approval is given by the State. With regard to the Director's recommendation that
flexible down parent requirements be developed, Mr, Morgenstein emphasized that
financing decisions would be made by local financial institutions and not by the
developers; however, since favorable financing terms would be in the best nnterest
of the developers as well as the prospective purchaser, his clients would continue
to meet with local financial institutions in an effort tr> obtain the best terms
possible. The Director had also recommended that the developers work in good faith
with the Human Rights Commission to assure that any necessary evictions or rental
increases beyond those related to normal market forces are inferred until the last
two years of the projected condominium sales. Mr. Morgenstein stated that it would
be very difficult for his clients to comply with that condition. However, he
advised the Commission that condominium sales at Park Chester in New York have been
going on for two years; and he indicated that normal tenant turnover had allowed
sales In that project to proceed without necessitating any evictions. He believed
that the same would be true in the case of Parkmerced. He stated that there are
200 vacant units at Parkmerced at the present time; and it was not expected that
condominium sales would require that anyone be evicted. Nevertheless, his clients
could not agree to the condition as recommended by the Director even though they
might be willing to agree to the condition if it were modified to involve a shorter
period of time. With regard to the issue of rental increases, he stated that the
Parkmerced Corportation had raised its rents because of economic factors and not
because it was trying to force anyone to move. The final recommendation which had
been made by the Director was that the applicant should work in good faith with the
Human Rights Commission to assure that long term and elderly residents will not be
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -11- FEBRUARY 21, 1974
evicted In any case, assutrlftg their ability to pay market rents. Mr. Morgenstein
stated that he had not beeu aware that that recommendation would be made; anl, as
a result, he had not discussed it with his clients and did not know if it would be
acceptable to them. However, he indicated that his clients did not contemplate
eviction action; and, if any such action were taken, the public uproar would
probably develop in the community.
President Newman, for purposes of clarification, asked if the developers
would agree that no further construction would take place in Parkmerced. Mr.
Morgenstein replied in the affirmative, indicating that they would be willing to
turn over the open spaces to a homeowners association which will be formed when the
condominium sales are initiated. As of that point, his clients would no longer
have any control over the open spaces.
President Newman asked if all vacant properties in the project could be
deeded as open space. The Director replied in the affirmative.
President Newman then asked if first preference for purchase of units in
Parkmerced would be given to occupants of the units. Mr. Morgenstein replied in
the affirmative.
Commissioner Porter stated that she had been stalled to learn that the
Parkmerced Corporation was planning to sell its 3,483 rental units; and, remarking
that Mr. Helmsley is apparently involved in similar conversions on the east coast,
she asked what advantages are offered by condominium arrangements above and beyond
those offered by the present rental operation.
Mr. Morgenstein stated that condominium subdivisions are far move, prevalent
on the east coast then they are in San Francisco; and he itd.icated that the
condominium subdivision of Parkmerced would increase the number of privately-owned
dwelling units in the city.
The Director stated that Ronald Jonash, a member of the staff of the Department
of City Planning, had been in contact with the State Real Estate Department and
had been advised that State law would not prohibit the developers from engaging
in discussions with tenant groups to assure their participation in the transition
to condominium ownership.
Commissioner Fleishhacker, noting that Mr. Morgenstein had stated that no
evictions had been made at Park Chester in New York, inquired about the number of
units which had been sold in that project and about the amount of time which had
elapsed since the sales were initiated. Mr. Morgenstein replied that sales at Park
Chester began 2 years ago. Three units in that projact have already been converted
to condominium ownership; and the developers are now proceeding with the sale of
additional units.
Commissioner Fleishhacker then asked if purchasers of the units in New York
are required to make a 257» downpayment. Mr. Morgenstein replied that he did not
know what down payment was being required for those units.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -12- FEBRUARY 21, 1974
President Newman asked for a comparison of the monthly prices now being paid
for the rental units and the estimated monthly prices which will be paid by owner-
fccupants of the condominium units. Mr. Morgenstein stated that it Is anticipated
that people who now live in the rental units will stay in the units and will
eventually own them. Under the condominium arrangement, the owner-occupants will
be responsible for monthly mortgage payments and their share of the budget
established for maintenance of common areas; however, as owners, they will also
enjoy certain income tax deductions. He believed that the owner-occupants of less
expensive units would be paying less per month than at the present time while
occupants of the more expensive units will be paying more than at the present
time.
Commissioner Ritchie stated that it seemed to him that the basic questions
before the Commission were whether Parkmerced should be allowed to become a
condominium project and whether additional dwelling units should be allowed on the
site. He then continued with the following comments:
"Mr. Morgenstein,
I have revived a copy of a New York Times article
about the owner of Parkmerced, dated November 11, 1973,
and it puzzles me » and l ^ould like to read y°u a few
paragraphs from it.
" 'Fame real estate analysts theorize that since he is
continuously refinancing and increasing his d ebt (now said to
totaJ a half-billion) he strains hard to make money because
the whole thing might collapse if he didn't.
" 'Nowadays, Mr. Helmsley prefers to handle commercial
properties where leases are negotiated in orderly fashion by
lawyers and where there are no clamoring demands, such as those
now ringing in his ears from his thousands of newly acquired
apartment tenants.
" 'Since politicans regard tenants as a voting block, he
complains, 'tenant power' makes a landlord's life miserable.
1,11 The aggravation isn't worth tho ownership, ' he paid,
shaking his head.
" 'Yet, he has been buying vast residential communities
because, he confesses, he can't resict a bargain.
" 'There are a few buyers with whopping amounts of ready
cash. And some of the owners of the country's biggest private
housing projects, particularly insurance companies, are in a
quandary.
" 'Either the tax benefits on these communities have run
out or, with controlled rents, management can no longer afford
to maintain them properly, and, at the same time, profitably.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -13- FEBRUARY 21, 1974
" 'The insurance companies worry about what will happen
to their public image if they turn the communities into
condominiums. They dread antagonizing thousands of tenants
who may be among their insurance customers and who resent being
forced into either buying their apartments or moving out.
" 'Consequently, the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
(which may feel it is dealing with another institution when
it sells to Mr. Helmsley) has sold him the 3,483-unit Parkmerced
Apartments in San Francisco for $60-million. And, for $90-million,
it sold him the 12,371-unit Parkchester complex in the Bronx which
is possibly worth $300-million.
" 'Although Metropolitan Life has not yet sold Stuyvesant Town
and Peter Cooper Village in Manhattan, thousands of residents there
are bracing themselves for a sale they believe is imminent.
" 'They are asking the Legislature to raise the proportion
of tenants required to approve a condominium plan from the present
35 percent to 51 percent They are being joined by tenants in
the Helmsley-owned Fresh Meadows complex and Tudor City apartments.
" 'The Tudor City tenants have already defeated Mr. Helmsley
in an attempt to erect office towers on the two private parks
within the project. They say he is sulking and has stopped main-
taining the parks.
" 'Now Helmsley tenants are joining forces with tenant
organizations in Syracuse, Buffalo and other cities as a
statewide tenant lobby.
" 'Obviously, Mr. Helmsley did not expect to open such a
Pandora's box-particularly in Parkchester where, he has announced
the whole residential section is to be switched to condominium
status for a total of $270-million instead of just one quadrant
for $56-million as previously planned. Some people suggest that
rumors of repeal of the vacancy decontrol law hastened this decision.
" 'Mr. Helmsley' s condominium prices have stirred protests.
" 'His Parkchester tenants are not opposed to the idea of
buying, but they object to the markup he's getting. If Parkchester
has been losing $l-million a month, they ask, why should it cost
so much to buy their apartments?
" ' 'I buy wholesale and sell retail,' thair landlord answers.
'I'm entitled, like everyone else. "
"Mr. Morgenstein, can you comment abjut the things in this
article?'"
■
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -14- FEBRUARY 21,1974
Mr. Morgenstein stated that it would be difficult to comment on the statements
made in the newspaper article; however, he would be willing to respond to any
factual questions which might be raised by members of the Commission. He observed,
however, that rising costs make it more difficult to maintain a good landlord-
tenant relationship because landlords must raise their rents and the tenants do not
like to have their rents raised.
Commissioner Fleishhacker asked about the aane of the person who had written
the New York Times article and whether the author has a reputation for accuracy.
Commissioner Ritchie replied that the article had been written by Shirley L. Benzer.
He stated that he was not familiar with her reputation.
Mr. Morgenstein stated that the article was Inaccurate in at least one regard.
New York law does not require that condominium plans be approved by 357. of the
tenants affected but merely specifies that no one can be evicted until 357. of the
units have been purchased.
Commissioner Rueda stated that he has a son who is a tenant in Parkmerced;
and, as a result, he intended to refrain from participation in the discussion and
vote on this matter because of a possible conflict of interest.
Michael Carroll, an attorney and a tenant of Parkmerced for 8 years, advised
the Commission that he was also the interim chairman of the Parkmerced Residents
Association, an organization which had been formed during the last 72 hours. He
then asked members of the audience who were present in opposition to the condominium
subdivision proposal to raise their hands; and practically everyone in the meeting
room responded. He stated that he regarded the recommendations which had been offered
by the Director of Planning as a "straw horse"; and he felt that the whole condc111*-11*-11™
subdivision project hinged on whether the existing open spaces were to be included
in or deleted from the overall package. In his opinion, the project was simply a
scheme to make money for New Yorkers. He advised the Commission that the Parkmerced
Corporation had written to its tenants on November 12, 1973, stating that they
would keep the tenants informed. Yet, the corporation had not advised the tenants
when the condominium study was submitted or when the tentative condominium subdivision
map was filed with the City. In fact, during the time which had elapsed since the
original letter was received, the corporation had remained silent, failing to work
with the tenants and apparently attempting to deceive them. Yet, no violation of
State law would nave occurred if the corporation had notified the tenants that the
condominium subdivision map had been filed. Mr. Carroll felt that the staff of the
Department had adequately pointed out the provisions of the Master Plan which would
not be met by the proposed condominium subdiivision; however, he felt that the staff
had not gone far enough in expressing complete disapproval of the proposal. He
emphasized that the project, as proposed, would not meet current open space require-
ments; and development of the existing open spaces would be detrimental to the
project and to the city as a whole. He also noted that the condominium subdivision
would not promote objectives of the Improvement Plans for Residents calling for
open occupancy and provision of low - ixvA moderate - income housing; and those
MINUTES CF REGUIAR MEETING -15- FEBRUARY 21, 1974
concerns were expressed In a letter which William L. Becker, Director of the Human
Rights Commission, had addressed to the Director of Planning. While he recognized
that the conditions which had been recommended by the Director were intended
to ameliorate some of the problems proposed by the project, he doubted that the
conditions could be effectively polished. The City Planning Commission would lose
jurisdiction over the matter once it has taken final action; and it would be
difficult for the Human Rights Commission to assure compliance with the conditions.
Mr. Carroll remarked that the Parkmerced Corporation may already be in contempt
of court, not because it is failing to rent to raiaorities but because it is failing
to rent to anyone. Furthermore, while it might be true that the corporation had
no intention of "evicting" any of the present tenaats, starting on January 1 the
corporation had begun to renew leases on a mo nth -tc -mo nth basis with rental increase
ranging from 177. to 20%; and it seemed to him that that was an obvious device to
force renters to leave the project one at a time. Ht also remarked that condominium
conversions are becoming increasingly popular and he indicated that developers can
make a profit of between 20 and 257. more by converting to condominium than by main-
taining rental units. The program in the present case was for a New York Corporate
to use two California Corporations to make a profit in San Francisco and to take
the proceeds back to New York. While the spokesman for the corporation had stated
that monthly payments following condominium sales will be approximately equal to
the payments now being made by tenants and that there would therefore be no need foi
evictions; however, Mr. MorgensCein's statements had net taken recent and future
rent increases into account and had apparently assumed that present tenants of
Parkmerced could afford to make a 25% down payment for purchase of their units.
Mr. Carroll remarked that condominium conversion of Parkmerced would reduce the
City's stock of renter-occupied housing by 3.6 percent; but, even at the present
time, the vacancy rate for rental units in San Francisco is less than that which
is required for normal mobility, especially with relation to 2- and 3- bedroom
units. If the T,777 rental units with 2- and 3- bedrooms are removed from the
rental market, the city's vacancy rate for such units would probably approach zero;
and, as a result rental rates for such units would "skyrocket", forcing the exodus
of families from San Francisc p. Under the circumstances^ he felt that approval of
the proposed condominium subdivision would be directly contrary to objective No.3 o
the Improvement Plan for Residence which states that maximum housing choice should
be provided.
Mr. Carroll stated that approval of the condominium subdivision by the
Commission would be completely unacceptable. Furthermore, conditional approval of
the proposal would also be unacceptable insofar as it would leave all of the option
in che hands of the developer. In either case, the Commission would be advising
the Director of Public Works tha: the subdivision should be approved; and if the
project were to be approved by the Director of Public Works, approval by the Board
of Supervisors would be msndato-y. Therefore, the only action on the part of the
Commission which would be acceptable would be disapproval in resounding terms so
that the Director of Public Works would have no alternative but to disapprove
the project, thus guaranteeing residents of Parkmerced an opportunity for
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -16- FEBRUARY 21, 1974
a meaningful hearing before the Board of Supervisors on appeal by the applicant.
If the Commission were not willing to disapprove the subdivision, he indicated
that he would request that the matter be continued; and he emphasized that action
by the Commission could be delayed beyond March 1 with the approval of the Parkmerce<"
Corporation. He remarked that other Bay Area communities have subdivision oidifisnceL.
and, until such time as San Francisco has an up-to-date subdivision ordinance, the
hearing before the City Planning Commission serves as the only point at which the
public can be involved in subdivision proposals.
Rev. Edward Peet, President of the California Legislative Council for Older
Americans, a member of the National Council of Elderly People, and a member of the
Commission on Aging in San Francisco, stated that he had not been aware of the
condominium subdivision proposal until a few days ago. He indicated that he has
been a resident of Parkmerced for 6% years; and he advised the Commission that many
older retired people live in Parkmerced, possibly as many as 1/3 of the total
population of the project. He stated that Parkmerced offers some security and a lot
of green open space; and he remarked that such factors are of prime importance for
older people. He also noted that Parkmerced is well served by public transportation,
which is an important convenience for older people. He agreed with the Director of
Planning that this location of older people can be a very serious matter; and he
stated that the older residents of Parkmerced do not intend to be forced out of
their apartments. He indicated that he knows one woman in her 70's who has been
a resident of Parkmerced for 21 years and has paid approximately $41,000 for her
apartment during that time; and, if she were to purchase her apartment on a
condominium basis, paying for it for the next 30 years, she will finally own the
apartment when she is 100 years old. He also remarked that some tenants of Parkmer'
had recently had their rental rates raised by $35, $40, and $50 a month while, at
the same time, 200 garden apartments have remained vacant. The obvious intent of
the owner of the project is to "make a big fat buck"; and he did not feel that the
owner should be allowed to make a profit at the expense of residents of this city.
He emphasized that the. tenants of Park Chester in New York had filed a lawsuit
against the developer and that they are firmly resisting condominium conversion
of that project and questioning why the condominium units should cost so much; and
in conclusion, he advised the Commission that older people do not want to have the
responsibility of owning property.
James Ballard, President of the Teacher's Union of San Francisco, spoke as a
resident of Parkmerced. He stated that he, also, had received a letter from the
Parkmerced Corporation in November stating that it would keep him informed of
any new developments; yet, he had heard nothing more from the corporation until
he had received a letter on February 14 advising him that his lease would be
renewed only on a month-to-month basis with a thirfy-day cancellation clause,
with a 17 1/2 percent rental increase, and with additional money being required
for a security deposit. In his opinion, the owner of Parkmerced is engaged in a
"white collar crime" and is trying to "rip off" the tenants of the project; and he
believed that the results of the developers' efforts would have a bearing on life
in the city as a whole. Mr. Ballard stated that he had chosen not to believe that
large corporations have no concern for human interest and dignity. However, the
owners of the Parkmerced Corporation appear to be carrying off one of the biggest
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -17- FEBRUARY 21, 1974
robberies he had ever seen in his life; and he was beginning to believe that some
large corporations do not have any concern for human interest and dignity. As far
as he was concerned, the corporation's action placing tenants on a month-to-month
"lease" arrangement amounted to the same thing as putting a gun to the tenants'
head and saying "buy up or get out." He remarked that it was now clear that
tenants of Parkmerced must become organized; and he hoped that the Commission would
help the tenants by disapproving the proposed condominium subdivision. He
felt that the staff of the Department of City Planning had prepared an excellent
report on the matter. However, he noted that the spokesman for the Parkmerced
Corporation^ while seeming to hedge, had actually said, "No " to some of the
conditions which had been recommended by the Director; and, as a result, he
felt that it would be very simple, clear, and correct for the Commission to
disapprove the condominium subdivision.
Robert L. Dunlop stated that he supported the remarks which had been made
by previous speakers in opposition to the condominium subdivision. However,
he remarked that they had forgotten to mention the word "credibility"; and in
his opinion, the present owners of the Parkmerced Corporation have no credibility
whatsoever. He stated that leases held by tenants in Parkmerced state that
the dwelling units will be repainted after five years; yet, one tenant who had
requested repainting after eight years had been refused. He advised the
Commission that the recreation director for the baseball field had been fired as
an economic measure; and he remarked that it is very obvious that the inuns and
the outs ides of the buildings are not being well maintained. In addition, the
corporation has decreased its security force. He had advised him that they would
have to talk with the owner in New York before responding to his complaints.
Judge Joseph Karesh, a resident of Parkmerced, was recognized by President
Newman and remarked that he was obviously opposed to the proposed condominium
conversion; however, because he was a judge, he felt that he was under restraint
and could not express how deeply he felt about the proposed project.
Daniel Del Carlo, also a resident of Parkmerced, stated that he, also had
received a letter from the Parkmerced Corporation in November indicating that
he would be kept advised of new developments; yet, not until yesterday had he
learned from another source what was actually going on. He stated that residents
of Parkmerced would not stand for the treatment they are receiving from the
Parkmerced Corporation.
Peter Bogich, a resident of Parkmerced for 19 years, felt that the proposed
purchase arrangements, as outlined during the meeting, in effect translated into
an order to "buy or beware." He remarked that the walls of some of the buildings
in Parkmerced cracked during the 1957 earthquake and he noted that the owners
of the Parkmerced Corporation had given no indication that they intended to under-
take any improvements before placing the dwelling units on the market.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -18- FEBRUARY 21,* 1974
Addle Rlschln asked the Commission to consider the effect which the proposed
condominium conversion would have on children in families who cannot afford to huy
their apartments.
The Director noted that he had given his recommendation to the Commission
at the beginning of the meeting; and he remarked that the Commission could act on
his recommendation as presented, approve the project with stronger conditions, or
disapprove the project. He indicated that he was particularly concerned that the
conditions concerning the Human Rights Commission should not be modified even
though the spokesman for the application had expressed some unwillingness to commit
his client to those conditions. In conclusion, he remarked that if the Commission
wished the matter to go to the Board of Supervisors, it should recommend that the
Director of Public Works disapprove the subdivision condominium map so that the
issue could be taken to the Board of Supervisors on appeal by the applicant.
President Newman asked for a clarification of the conditions which the
developer would not be willing to accept.
The Director stated that the developer was apparently willing to accept the
conditions relating to the existing open space and the shopping center; however,
he indicated that he was not entirely sure of the developer's position relative to
the other conditions.
Mr. Morgenstein, remarking on the other conditions, stated that the require-
ment to defer evictions or rental increases until the last two years of the
projected condominium sales period seemed excessive; however, he stated that his
client would be willing to discuss that matter with the Human Rights Commission.
He stated that his client would be anxious to achieve flexible downpayment
requirements; however, he emphasized that final decisions in that regard would rest
with local financial institutions. He stated that his client would agree to
initiate discussions with tenant groups as soon as possible as long as such meeting
would not violate State law. With regard to the final condition recommended by the
Director, to the effect that long-term and elderly residents should not be evicted
in any case assuming their ability to pay market rents, Mr. Morgenstein stated that
he did not believe that the condition would create a problem; however, since he
had not had an opportunity to discuss it with his clients, he could not assure the
Commission that his clients would have no objection to it. In conclusion,
with regard to the issue of policing the conditions, he remarked that the Human
Rights Commission could declare the developers to be in violation of the conditions
if it should be found that the conditions were not being met.
Mrs. Peet asked if the Director, in recommending that long-term and elderly
residents should not be evicted, had intended that those residents should be
allowed to retain their leases instead of being placed on a month-to-month
arrangement under which their rents could be raised each month.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -19- FEBRUARY 21, 1974
The Director stated that his concern was that any rental increases be related
to cost of living increases rather than being designed to force people out of the
rental units. He emphasized that the City Planning Commission does not have the
power to establish conditions which would be binding on the developer but acts
only in an advisory capacity to the Director of Public Works who will make the
final decision; and it was his recommendation that the Director of Public Works
be advised that the condominium subdivision map -would not be in conformity with
the Master Plan unless the conditions which he had recommended were established.
Commissioner Porter stated that she intended to vote against the Director's
recommendation. While she realized that the statr had put a great deal of effort
into formulating conditions designed to ameliorate the impact of the condominium
conversion, she believed that the conditions would be unenforceable and that
they would afford no real protection whatsoever. Therefore, she moved that
condominium subdivision map be disapproved. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Ritchie .
Commissioner Fleishhacker asked if the Commission could legally take such
action. The Director replied in the affirmative. He indicated that the
Commission might also wish to state that the condominium conversion would offer
potential large-scale physical and social dislocation of people; and it might also
wish to suggest that binding conditions similar to those which he had recommended
be established by the Director of Public Works or the Board of Supervisors on
appeal if the condominium subdivision were to be approved by either of those
parties.
Commissioner Porter stated that she felt very definitely that Parkmerced
should not be converted into a condominium; and, therefore, she did not wish to
have any statement attached to the Commission's action which would imply that the
condominium subdivision would be acceptable under certain conditions. She stated
that she would still have voted against the project even if Mr. Morgenstein
had agreed to all of the conditions which had been recommended by the Director.
Commissioner Ritchie stated that he agreed with Commisaioner Porter. He then
proceeded to read the following statement for the record:
"During this meeting, I have written out a few remarks which
I would like to read to you now. I would give these remarks
the title:
"'Whatever happened to Parkmerced?'
"Many of us here remember those days when Parkmerced rose
out of the ground, based on a plan to provide attractive rental
units, both garden-type and high-rise in a landscaped setting
for middle -income families of San Francisco.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -20- FEBRUARY 21, 1974
"We also remember the long long period of waiting as
tenants were attracted to the vacant units. I especially
recall counting and recounting the great number of taped x's
in the windows of each of the vacant apartments in the high-
rise towers. It took a number of years to lease these. Then,
finally, Parkmerced became occupied, and, as the years passed,
it became a good project for its then owners and developers,
tne Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.
"In recent years, the Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. decided
to offer this property for sale. I take it they had used up most
of their depreciation. They made an effort to seek possible
buyers. And they found a purchaser. The same buyer of several
of their other similar properties in the East, in the New York
area, Mr. Harry Helmsley of Helmsley-Spear & Co., of Manhattan (Park
Chester, some 12,000 apartments and other projects from the
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.)
"Since the acquisition of this project by the new owners,
it has apparently been determined that the best routes to make
a substantial dollar killing out of Parkmerced is condominium
conversion. In short, this is the best route to cut a fat hog.
This is the intended objective, I suspect, and could result in
the removal of the bulk of the profits of these sales from
San Francisco to the New York area.
"I, for one, strongly object to such a prime regrettable
major result to the once high hopes of having Parkmerced as a
location and supply of attractive rental units for people of
middle income in San Francisco,
"The need for rental units of this type is very great in
the City today. The plan and atmosphere of Parkmerced as a
planned community, offering attractive rental units, was the
concept by which this all came about; and I do not believe
that the type of occupancy should be changed there. That is
to say, keep tenant-occupancy and no condominium conversion.
"The balance between open areas and buildings and other
amenities of Parkmerced is considered good and constitutes
one of its greatest assets. To destroy this balance by adding
additional units would be to gradually convert Parkmerced to
too much density.
"I object to the condominium-conversion of Parkmerced.
"I object to the construction of additional units in Parkmerced.
Therefore, I am strongly opposed to the proposal before us today and
will vote emphatically against it."
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -21- FEBRUARY 21, 1974
President Newman stated that he thought that the Parkmerced issue was one of
the most major issues which had ever come before the City Planning Commission; and
he remarked that it was likely that the Commission would have to deal with similar
issues in the future. When condominium conversions are proposed, he felt that
tenants should have rights; and, as a result, he believed that a condominium sub-
division ordinance is urgently needed in San Francisco. He observed that Parkmerced
is the Largest residential development in San Francisco, housing 17„ of the
population of the city; and he noted that many social issues would be at stake if
the condominium conversion were to proceed. He believed that tenants do have
rights; and he believed that those rights were being usurped in the present case.
Therefore, he felt that the issue should be heard by the Board of Supervisors, the
highest legislative body in the city.
When the question was called, the Commission voted unanimously to authorize
the Director to report to the Director of Public Works that the tentative sub-
division map for Parkmerced, dated December 1973, is not in conformity with the
Master Plan and should therefore be disapproved. Commission Rueda abstained
from voting.
At 4:20 p.m. President Newman announced a ten-minute recess. The Commission
reconvened at 4: JO p.m. and proceeded with hearing of the remainder of the agenda.
LM74.1 CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSAL TO DESIGNATE THE MT.SH HOUSE,
1153 OAK STREET, AS A LANDMARK.
Robert Passmore, Planner V (Zoning), described the subject building and
remarked on its architectural and historic characteristics.
Phillip Bill, the owner of the building, stated that he understood that
Landmark designation would mean only that he would not be permitted to tear
the building down without the approval of the Commission; and as a result, he was
not opposed to having the building designated as a Landmark. He advised the
Commission that he had searched unsuccessfully for financial assistance to aid in
the restoration of Victorian buildings. In that regard, he noted that both the
Mish House and the Phelps House, which has already been designated as a Landmark,
are located between two proposed code enforcement areas; and he indicated that low
interest loans for rehabilitation could be obtained if the buildings could be
included in one of those code enforcement areas.
Commissioner Ritchie asked what steps are being taken to restore the Mish
House. Mr. Bill replied that nothing is being done at the present time. He
indicated that he would be interested in attempting restoration of the building;
however, his partner felt that restoration was not feasible and believed that the
building should be sold. In reply to further questions raised by Commissioner
Ritchie, Mr. Bill stated that the Mish House is presently vacant and indicated
that he did not know the value of the property since he had acquired it along with
eight other parcels of property at an estate sale.
MINUTE OF REGULAR MEETING - 22- FEBRUARY 21, 1974
Commissioner Fleishhacker asked if the owner of the building would be in
violation of the City Planning Code if vandals were to strip off elements of the
facade after the building has been designated as a Landmark. Mr. Passmore replied
in the negative.
After further discussion, if. was moved by Commissioner Ritchie, seconded by
Commissioner Porter, and carried unanimously that Resolution No. 7148 be adopted
and that the propotr.l to designate the Mish House as a Landmark be approved.
LM74.2 CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSAL TO DESIGNATE THE QUINN HOUSE,
1562 McKINNOU AVENUE, AS A LANDMARK.
> / '
Robert Passmore, Planner V (Zoning) deGcribed the architectural and historic
characteristics of the subject building which had led the Landmarks Preservation
Advisory Board to recommend that it be designated as a Landmark. He advised the
Commission that the building is presently under condemnation; however, the City
Attorney had advised that the building could still be designated as a Landmark.
President Newman asked if the owner of the building was present. Mr. Passmore
replied in the negative and indicated that the present ownership of the building
was not clear. He stated that the property may have reverted to Gibralter Savings
and Loan; and, if so, that organization had indicated that it would support the
proposal for designation of the building as a Landmark.
After further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Fleishhacker, seconded
by Commissioner Porter, and carried unanimously that Resolution No. 7149 be adopted
and that the proposal to designate the Quinn House as a Landmark be approved.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved by Commissioner Fleishhacker, seconded by Commissioner Porter,
and carried unanimously that the minutes of the meeting of November 8, 1973, be
approved as submitted.
CURRENT MATTERS
The Director advised the Commission of matters which were being considered
that afternoon by the Planning, Housing and Development Committee of the Board
of Supervisors.
The Director informed the Commission that the full Board of Supervisors,
meeting next Monday, will hear the appeal of the Commission's recent approval
of the conditional use medical office building for St. Mary's Hospital.
The Director reminded members of the Commission that a field trip will
be scheduled next Thursday at 1:00 P.M. to visit properties which will be
considered during the Zoning Hearing to be held on March 7, 1974.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -23- , FEBRUARY 21, 1974
The Plan Implementation Committee (Commissioners Fleishhacker, Porter, Rueda)
agreed to meet next Friday, March 1, at noon to discuss the March 7 Zoning cases.
The Director reported that the State Compensation Insurance Fund is proposing
to construct an office building at Ninth & Market Streets which would have 100 more
parking spaces than would be permitted without conditional use approval by the
Commission. Representatives of the fund had claimed that the organization is a
State agency and that it is therefore exempt from local zoning requirements; and
they had indicated that they will not file a conditional use application. The
staff of the Department of City Planning was of the opinion that the fund is not a
State agency in a complete sense, since it functions as any other private insurance
carrier does and since a local building permit is required; and the staff had
advised the fund that their building permit application will not be approved if it
calls for additional parking spaces which have not been approved by the City
Planning Commission as a conditional use.
The Director continued his report with the following statement:
"The Commission has received two letters dated February 19, 1974
from Kent Storey, Vice President (merchants) of the Haight-Ashbury
Improvement Association, requesting discretionary review of applications
for a second hand dealer (household items) at 1612 Haight Street
and for a second dealer (art goods) at 1732 Haight Street.
"These applications have been referred to this Department
by the Police Department for review under the Planning Code. A
second hand dealer is a permitted use in the C-2 district, the
zoning classification of the two subject properties. Prior to
receipt of the letters the Department had approved the proposal
for 1732 Haight Street; the 1612 Haight Street proposal, which
could otherwise be approved, is being held because of the received
letters.
"Second hand dealer applications are reviewed by the Police
Department in a public hearing; review by the Planning Commission
appears unnecessary. I recommend that the Commission not review
the subject applications.
After discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Porter, seconded by Commissioner
Ritchie, and carried unanimously that the request from the Haight-Ashbury Improve-
ment Association for discretionary review of applications for secondhand dealers at
1612 and 1732 Haight Street be denied.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -24- FEBRUARY 21, 1974
The Director recommended the adoption of a draft resolution which would
authorize him to prepare and submit a supplemental appropriation request in the
amount of $50 for the current fiscal year and a supplemental budget request in the
amount of $160 for the next fiscal year to provide funds to enable the Department
to pay for use of employees1 automobiles at the new rate which has been established
by the Board of Supervisors. After discussion it was moved by Commissioner Rueda,
seconded by Commissioner Farrell, and carried unanimously that the draft resolution
be adopted as Resolution No. 7150.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynn E. Pio
Secretary
2i2tm
:nts
"SAN FRANCISCO
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
^-pMinutes of the Regular Meeting held Thursday, February 28, 1974.
The City Planning Commission met pursuant to notice on Thursday, February
28, 1974, at 100 Larkin Street at 1:00 P.M.
PRESENT: Walter S. Newman, President; Mrs. Charles B. Porter, Vice-
President; John C. Farrell, Mortimer Fleishhacker, Thomas J.
Mellon, John Ritchie, and Hector E. Rueda, members of the
City Planning Commission.
ABSENT: None.
The staff of the Department of City Planning was represented by Allan B.
Jacobs, Director of Planning; R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director (Zoning
Administrator); Richard Hedman, Planner V - Urban Design; Marie Zeller, Planner
III - Administrative; and Lynn E. Pio, Secretary.
Donald Canter represented the San Francisco Examiner; Larry Liebert repre-
sented the San Francisco Chronicle; and Sanna Craig represented the San Francisco
Bay Guardian.
1:00 P.M. Field Trip
Members of the Commission and staff departed from 100 Larkin Street at
1:00 p.m. to take a field trip to properties scheduled for consideration during
the Zoning Hearing to be held on March 7, 1974.
2:15 P.M. - 100 Larkin Street
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved by Commissioner Fleishhacker, seconded by Commissioner Rueda,
and carried unanimously that the minutes of the meetings of January 10 and 14,
be approved as submitted.
CURRENT MATTERS
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, reminded the Implementation Committee
(Commissioners Fleishhacker, Rueda, Porter) of a meeting scheduled tomorrow,
March 1, at 12:00 noon.
The Director distributed a revised listing of committees of the Commission
reflecting regular meeting days which had been agreed to by individual members
of the Commission. He indicated that a proposed amendment of the Rules and
Regulations of the Commission to establish those regular meeting dates would be
calendared for consideration by the Commission at its meeting next week.
-
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 2 - FEBRUARY 28, 1974
Richard Hedman, Planner V - Urban Design, reported on the status of pro-
tected Residential Area plans for the Inner Richmond District, the Inner Sunset
District, and the Mission District. Following his presentation, he responded to
questions which were raised by members of the Commission.
The Director summarized a memorandum which he had prepared for the Bay
Conservation and Development Commission's Waterfront Advisory Committee con-
cerning proposed development guildelines for the Northern Waterfront. The memo-
randum, entitled "Proposed Guidelines for Areas *C' and 'd'" and dated February
21, 1974, is available in the files of the Department of City Planning. After
completing his summary of the memorandum, the Director remarked that the posi-
tion taken by the staff in the memorandum was totally consistent with the
Northern Waterfront Master Plan and with other policy positions which had been
taken by the Commission in the past; however, he indicated that many of the
members of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission's Waterfront Advisory
Committee did not agree with the position which had been taken by the staff.
The staff had taken the position that residential and office uses might be ap-
propriate in the Northern Waterfront; but many members of the committee had dis-
agreed and had taken the position that such uses would not be permitted by the
Bay Conservation and Development Commission's plan. President Newman, who is
a member of the Committee, confirmed that both he and the Director had consist-
ently represented the policies of the Commission as expressed in the Northern
Waterfront Master Plan.
President Newman remarked that several members of the Commission, during
last week's meeting, had expressed the opinion that San Francisco should have
a condominium subdivision ordinance; and they had requested the Director to com-
ment on that subject during the present meeting. The Director stated that San
Francisco has not had a real subdivision ordinance for a number of years; and
he remarked that many people have been of the opinion that a subdivision ordi-
nance is not needed because San Francisco is already subdivided. He indicated,
however, that work has been done on a subdivision ordinance under the auspices
of the City Attorney's Office; but the last draft of that ordinance which he
had seen had not contained provisions relating to condominium subdivision. He
stated that preparation of the ordinance had been given low priority, probably
because of the general feeling that the City is already subdivided. If a con-
dominium subdivision ordinance were to be prepared or if the draft of the sub-
division ordinance in preparation were to be expanded to cover condominiums,
a considerable amount of work would be required either by the staff of the
Department of City Planning or the staff of the City Attorney's Office. He
stated that he had requested subdivision ordinances from other communities,
including the draft of the subdivision ordinance which is being prepared for
Harin County; and he indicated that he would advise the Commission of their
availability when they have been received. Ti. a condominium subdivision or-
dinance were to be prepared for San Francisco, he felt that there was no doubt
that the staff of the Department of City Planning should be involved in the
project; yet, given the present work program of the Department, including an
increased number of Environmental Review projects and the projected City-xrf.de
Comprehensive Residential Zoning Study, he felt that it would be impossible for
the staff to begin work on a condominium subdivision ordinance at this time.
After discussion, the Commission requested that the Director determine what
would be involved in preparation of a condominium subdivision ordinance or a
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 3 - FEBRUARY 28, 1974
general subdivision ordinance, that he obtain copies of such ordinances from
other communities, and that he report back on this matter in four -weeks.
The Commission requested that they be advised of the details of their
responsibility for filing financial disclosure statements in April at next
week's meeting.
R73.59 - SIDEWALK EXTENSIONS ON WOODLAND AVENUE AT PARNASSUS AVENUE.
The Director reported on this matter as follows :
"Woodland Avenue starts at Parnassus and ascends to Willard
Street, Belmont and Edgewood Avenues, streets noted for their
verdant character. Woodland has a 60-foot right-of-way, 40-foot
road and 10-foot sidewalks. The proposal is to widen the side-
walk to 18 feet at Parnassus, permitting double rows of trees and
creating a gateway reflective of the wooded environment above.
The easterly extension is 44 feet long, the westerly is limited
to 19 feet due to garages in the corner building.
"The Woodland Avenue Association is sponsoring this beauti-
fication project, and is raising funds to pay for part of it and
will do some of the construction, such as tree planting and set-
ting bricks. The City is contributing the cost of installing
the new curbs, cutting holes for the trees, and conventional side-
walks. The neighborhood will maintain the trees.
"This type of improvement is consistent with the objectives
for neighborhood environment and the protected residential areas
concept of the Urban Design Plan."
At the conclusion of his report, the Director recommended that he be
authorized to report to the Director of Public Works that the sidewalk exten-
sions on Woodland Avenue at Parnassus are in conformity with the Master Plan.
President Newman aslced who would be responsible for maintaining the ex-
panded sidewalks. Commissioner Mellon replied that abutting property owners
are responsible for sidewalk maintenance.
Commissioner Rueda remarked that the proposed project would result in the
removal of existing on-street parking spaces.
Mike Tudury, representing the Woodland Avenue Association, displayed and
described a rendering which he had prepared of the proposed project. He con-
firmed that the project would result in the removal of five on-street parking
spaces; however, in view of the neighborhood's proximity to the University of
California Medical Center, residents of the area were convined that even the
addition of 100 on-street parking spaces would not solve the parking problems
in the neighborhood.
■'
■ . '
: i
•
: ' • •
•'•'
'
' - '''
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 4 - FEBRUARY 28, 1974
President Newman asked if the owners of properties abutting the sidewalks
which would be widened were in favor of the project. Mr. Tudury replied that
three of the abutting owners had agreed to the project; however, the owner of
the apartment building on the corner was not pleased with the plan because she
does not like trees. Mr. Tudury remarked that the apartment building is out of
scale with the rest of the neighborhood; and he believed that the trees which
would be planted would soften the impact of that building.
Commissioner Porter asked if the owner of the apartment building would have
to pay a share of the cost of the project. Mr. Tudury replied in the negative,
stating that the cost of the project would be assuned only by individuals who
wished to participate.
Commissioner Rueda inquired about the purpose of the proposed project.
The Director replied that the apparent purpose of the project was to discourage
traffic generated by the University of California Medical Center from using
Woodland Avenue by creating a protected residential area.
After further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Rueda, seconded by
Commissioner Porter, and carried unanimously that the Director be authorized to
report to the Director of Public Works that the sidewalk extensions on Woodland
Avenue at Parnassus, as shown on Bureau of Engineering Drawing Q- 20-292, is in
conformity with the Master Plan.
R74. 2 - ESTABLISHMENT OF SIDEWALK WIDTH ON FRONT STREET AT VALLEJO
STREET.
The Director reported on this matter as follows:
"The Director of Public Works proposes to establish an official
sidewalk width of 11.46 feet on the east side of Front Street between
Vallejo and Green Streets, and requests the Commission's report as to
Master Plan Conformity.
"There has been no sidewalk on this block in the past. Formerly
an area of warehouse and industrial uses, the roadside was devoted to
a railroad spur. A sidewalk is to be installed with the Master Charge
office building being built on this block. It will conform to the
prevailing sidewalk width on Front Street and other streets in the
vicinity. One sixth of the width of the right-of-way is 11.46 feet,
and the roadway amounts to two thirds of the right-of-way (68' - 9")."
At the conclusion of his report, the Director recommended that establish-
ment of the proposed official sidewalk width be approved as in conformity with
the Master Plan.
■■■■
-•..": ...-■■ ■■ - ' . ■•
.
. '
■
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 5 - FEBRUARY 28, 1974
After discussion it was moved by Commissioner Ritchie, seconded by Com-
missioner Mellon, and carried unanimously that the Director be authorized to
report that the establishment of the official sidewalk width of 11.46 feet on
the east side of Front Street between Vallejo and Green Streets is in conformity
with the Master Plan.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:40 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynn E. Pio
Secretary
•■ :c
W£> DOCUMENTS
•1
--SAN FRANCISCO
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of the Regular Meeting held Thursday, March 7, 1974.
The City Planning Commission met pursuant to notice on Thursday,
March 7, 1974, at 1:45 p.m. in Room 282, City Hall.
PRESENT: Walter S. Newman, President; Mrs . Charles B. Porter,
Vice-President; John C . Farrell and John Ritchie, members
of the City Planning Commission.
ABSENT; Mortimer Fleishhacker, Thomas J. Mellon, and Hector E .
Rueda , members of the City Planning Commission.
The staff of the Department of City Planning was represented by Allan B.
Jacobs, Director of Planning; R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director-Imple-
mentation (Zoning Administrator); Robert Passmore, Planner V (Zoning); Peter
Svirsky, Planner V (Zoning); Selina Bendi::, Environmental Review Officer;
Richard Gamble, Planner IV; William Duchek, Planner III; Paul Rosetter,
Planner II; Wilbert Hardee, Planner II; and Lynn E. Pio, Secretary.
Larry Liebert represented the San Francisco Chronicle; Donald Canter
represented the San Francisco Examiner; and Eileen Maloney represented the
San Francisco Progress.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved by Commissioner Porter, seconded by Commissioner Farrell,
and carried unanimously that the minutes cf the meeting of February 7, 1C74,
be approved as submitted.
CURRENT MATTERS
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, informed the Commission that
Conditional Use Application No. 74.3, involving a request for authorization
for a car wash at 24th and Diamond Streets, had erroneously been advertised
for hearing at this meeting. The staff had made a determination that an
Environmental Impact Report would be required for this project; and that tie-
termination had been appealed . The appeal will be heard on March 21 at
3:00 p.m.; and the Conditional Use Application cannot be heard until the
Environmental Impact Report matter is resolved. After discussion, it was
moved by Commissioner Farrell, seconded by Commissioner Porter, and carried
unanimously that action on the conditional use application be postponed until
the Environmental Impact Report matter is rcoolved .
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -2- MARCH 7, 1274
The Director then read the following statement :
"As Mr. Steele reported to the Implementation Committee
last Friday the Department expects that between 40 and 50
family care homes that have been operating without the con-
ditional use authorization acquired under the City Planning
Code will, during the coming months, be filing conditional use
applications to legalize their existence. These homes have
been operating for jome time, and in most cases are small
in size. Mr. Steele suggested to the Committee that it
might be appropriate to process this large number of potential
applications in the jame fashion used a few years ago for
applications to extend the expiration period for a number of
non-conforming uses. This procedure entails authorizing
the Zoning Administrator to conduct the initial public hearings
on the conditional use applications at a time and place to be
determined by him . The hearings are then continued to a
regular meeting of the Commission, at which time he reports
his findings from the initial hearings. The Commission may
at that time take additional testimony, and would then make
their decision on each application.
"A resolution to authorize this process had been prepared
for your convenience if you feel that this process it appropriate."
After discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Porter, seconded by
Commissioner Ritchie, and carried unanimously that the draft resolution be
adopted as City Planning Commission Resolution No. 7151.
The Director contined his report with the following statement:
"The Environmental Impact Report for the Wastewater
Master Plan is being handled jointly by the Dept. of City Plan-
ning and the Environmental Protection Agency because Federal
funding of the first stage of the project involves compliance
with the National Environmental Policy Act as well as the usual
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The
variety of Federal, State and City deadlines for this joint EIR-
EIS make it desirable to schedule the joint DCP/EPA public
hearing in advance of presentation of this EIR to the Planning
Commission so that there is adequate load time to incorporate
public comments and responses thereto in the final document.
I would like the Commission to authorize the Environmental
Review Officer to conduct a joint public hearing with EPA 30 ,
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -3- MARCH 7, 1974
days after publication of notice that the draft is complete
(March 15) . The record would remain open for another 15
days, as legally required, and the EIR-EIS and a report /
on the hearing would then be presented to the Commission
at the first meeting after the required 45 days from pub-
lication elapse . "
After discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Farrell, seconded by
Commissioner Porter, and carried unanimously that the Environmental Review
Officer be authorized to conduct a joint public hearing with the Environmental
Protection Agency as recommended by the Director.
The Director reminded the City Wide Comprehensive Plans Committee
(Commissioners Newman, Mellon, and Ritchie) of a meeting scheduled next
Thursday, March 14, at 12:00 noon.
CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO SECTIONS 1, 3,4 AND5CF ARTICLE
IV OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION.
The Director stated that the proposed rule changes had been mailed to
individual members of the Commission; and he remarked that the purpose of
the rule changes was to establish regular meeting dates for the various com-
mittees of the Commission. The Secretary pointed out a clerical error in
which the word "Committee" was used redundantly; and he recommended that
the word be deleted from the draft of the proposed rule changes . After dis-
cussion, it was moved by Commissioner Ritchie , seconded by Commissioner
Porter, and carried unanimously that the draft of the proposed amendments of
Sections 1, 3 ,4 and 5 of Article IV of the Rules and Regulations of the City
Planning Commission, as amended, be approved.
R73.57 - LAND ACQUISITION FOR MUNICIPAL RAILWAY TRANSFORMER
STATIONS.
Richard Gamble, Planner IV, reported on this matter as follows:
"The modernization of the Municipal Railway involved lo-
cation of additional transformer substations to meet the increased
power needs of the new Muni -Metro system. Six sites are re-
quired . Three of the proposed sites are located in open space
zones and are undergoing further study to consider alternate lo-
cations and design solutions compatible with the open space
functions. These will be submitted to the Commission after
they have completed the environmental review process.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -4- MARCH 7, 1974
"The three under consideration today are 2708 Judah
Street, 2219 Taraval and in the middle of Block 678 bounded
by Sutter, Steiner, Bush and Fillmore Streets .
"1. 2708 Judah Street is 25 x 100' lot 32 .5 feet west
of 32nd Avenue in an R-3 zone, currently occupied with a
one-story office building. To the east is a two-family
dwelling on the corner lot and neighborhood shopping in
the next block. To the west are two- and three-story
multi-family dwelling structures. Most have a setback
of about ten feet.
"The Public Utilities Commission assures us that
the structures will be of solid masonry and concrete
construction and of architectural character compatible to
the neighborhood, and that landscaping and an off-street
parking space will be provided. The building will be 2 5
x 60 feet, one story with a 15-foot high ceiling. The de-
sign of the structure will have to be approved by the Art
Commission.
"The zoning (R-3) permits public buildings of non-
industrial character provided they are found to be in con-
formity with the Master Plan. The substation would be
made sufficiently soundproof and will have appropriate
architectural and landscape treatment, and thus qualifies
as having ' non-industrial character.' The Urban Design
Plan Principle 24 for Neighborhood Environment says,
' Public buildings can contribute to neighborhood appear-
ance if they are well-designed , attractively painted and
generously landscaped.' Additionally, the Mass Transit
Plan Objective 1 is to 'Give first priority to improving
transit service throughout the City." This public build-
ing is being located according to the functional needs of
the transit system and will be appropriately designed for
a residential area and thus will be in conformity with the
Master Plan.
"2 . 2219 Taraval is a vacant lot, the westerly half
of a defunct garden nursery business, measuring 25 x 100'
and located 57 .5 feet west of 32nd Avenue on the south
side of the street. It is in a C-l zone. The same con-
siderations apply as in the R-3 zone. Commercial struc-
tures occupy most ox the frontage along the block, with
no setbacks . The PUC proposes the same size structure
as on Judah Street .
MJNUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -5- MARCH 7, 1S74
"3 . Center of Block 678 (Sutter Substation) . This
is in the A-2 redevelopment project. All of the properties
on the southern half of this block are scheduled for
clearance and development with high density residential
use. The Redevelopment Agency is amenable to selling
this mid -block site with the understanding that the sub-
station would be underground and that the ground surface
would be landscapable and used as open space for the
residential development. The only above-ground facil-
ities would be the ventilation shaft, access hatches,
and stairs, and a driveway to Fillmore Street. The
zoning is C-2 ."
The Director recommended that acquisition of the three sites be approved
as in conformity with the Master Plan.
President Newman inquired about the purpose of the new transformer
substations. Leonard Joffers , representing the Public Utilities Commission,
stated that the purpose of the new transformer substations is to provide
better voltage to serve the new rail cars which have been ordered by the City.
After further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Porter, seconded
by Commissioner Ritchie, and carried unanimously that the Director be
authorized to report that the acquisition of Lot 12 , Block 1787 (Judah Site) ,
Lot 46, Block 2723 (Taraval Site), and a site in the middle of Block 678
(Sutter Site), as shown en PUC Drawing A-13C1 for Municipal Railway Trans-
former Substations, is in conformity with the Master Plan.
ZONING HEARING
CU74.4 - 1754 FELL STREET, NORTH LINE, 128.25 FEET
EAST OF ASHBURY STREET .
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR A PHILAN-
THROPIC Oil ELEEMOSYNARY INSTITUTION TO
PERMIT CONTINUED OCCUPANCY OF THE SUB-
JECT BUILDING BY THE SAN FRANCISCO DRUG
TREATMENT PROGRAM, INC.
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director-Implementation (Zoning Admin-
istrator) , referred to land use and zoning maps to describe the subject
property which is a rectangular lot with a 25-foot frontage on Fell Street
and a depth of 137.5 feet for a total area of 3,437.5 square feet. He stated
that the building occupying the site is occupied by the San Francisco Drug
Treatment Program; and he indicated that the applicant was requesting per-
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -5- MARCH 7, 1274
mission to continue the present use. In conclusion, he stated that the
density provisions of the R-3 .5 district would permit a maximum of six
dwelling units on the subject property.
Philip S. Warden, Attorney for the applicant, stated that he knew
of no opposition to the application.
Terry Burris, Director of the San Francisco Drug Treatment Program,
summarized the history of his organization. He advised the Commission
that the house occupying the subject property had been vacant for six years
prior to being occupied by his organization; and he indicated that the
structure had been repaired and renovated to accommodate the present use.
He stated that he had been advised in July, 1C73, that the use was in
violation of the City Planning Code and that a cease and desist order would
be issued . The only alternatives available to him were to file a Conditional
Use Application to legalize the use or to relocate to a new site in a com-
merical district. Because of the difficulties involved in relocation, he had
chosen to file the Conditional Use Application. He stated that his organ-
ization deals primarily with out-patient services and that an average of only
30 clients visit the premises during a work day. He advised the Commission
that no property owners within a 300-foot radius of the subject site had com-
plained about the use; and, in fact, many of the resident owners, as well
as residents, had pledged their support to the application. In addition,
the application was supported by the Haight Ashbury Merchants Improvement
Association, the Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council, the John Hale Health
Plan, the Department of Youth Authority, the San Francisco Adult Probation
Department, the Catholic Social Service, and many other local organizations.
Also, 150 people, none of them clients of the program, had signed a petition
in favor of the application. He urged that the application be approved.
President Newman asked if anyone was present to speak in opposition
to the application and received a negative response. He then asked for a
show of hands of people present in the meeting room in support of the
application; and approximately 30 people responded.
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, stated that the San Francisco
Drug Treatment Program fulfills a unique medical and social service for
residents of the subject neighborhood; and he remarked that the use has
been located on the subject property for three years and is known to the
community. He felt that the building provides an excellent location and
facility for the San Francisco Drug Treatment Program; and he believed that
the program would not generate any substantial automobile traffic because
it is neighborhood -oriented . He stated that the exterior of the building has
not been and would not be significantly altered by the use; and, therefore,
£L6l 'ST M3»K
W - ££51
(3Jod3"a IBUT5)
anwMV«ooaa iNawaAaaani tviinhv
MINUSES OF REGULAR MEETING -7- MARCH 7, 1974
its residential character would be preserve. He also noted that the appli-
cation had been supported by residents of the neighborhood. Therefore,
he recommended that the application be approved subject to four specific
conditions which were contained in a draft resolution which he had prepared
for consideration by the Commission. After summarizing the conditions, he
recommended that the draft resolution be adopted.
President Newman asked if the conditions which had been recommended
by the Director would be acceptable to the applicant. Mr. Burris replied in
the affirmative.
Commissioner Porter inquired about the length of time that the Drug
Treatment Program has been in operation. Mr. Burris replied that the Drug
Treatment Program has been in operation in the Haight Ashbury District for
S years but has occupied the subject property for only 3 years.
After further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Ritchie, seconded
by Commissioner Porter end carried unanimously that the draft resolution
be adopted as City Planning Resolution No. 715°. and that the application be
approved subject to the conditions which had been recommended by the
Director.
EE74.23 - APPEAL CF A DETERMINATION BY THE DEPARTMENT
OF CITY PLANNING THAT AN ENVIRONMENTAL IM -
PACT REPORT WILL BE NECESSARY FOR THE CONDITIONAL
USE APPLICATION REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION
FOR A MORTUARY ESTABLISHMENT AT THE SOUTH-
EAST CORNER OF MEADE AVENUE AND THIRD
STREET. IN A C-2 DISTRICT.
Wilbert Hardee, Planner II, reported on this matter and gave the reasons
for the staff's determination that an Environmental Impact Report would be
necessary for the project. He also advised the Commission that the De-
partment of Public Works had subsequently made a determination that the
proposed project would not have a detrimental effect on traffic in the area.
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, made the following statement:
"As has been indicated, we were concerned about several
factors in the initial evaluation of environmental impact of the
proposal. Cumulatively these indicated a questionable situa-
tion. Since that time, further study end discussion has re-
sulted in the conclusion that if the traffic hazard which I do
believe exists at the corner of Meade and Third is alleviated,
and it appears that this can be accomplished, I feel the impact,
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -S- MARCH 7, 1974
though still adverse to a degree, is not sufficiently adverse
to be considered significant . I would therefore recommend
that the Commission find proposal, as it now stands, could
not have a significant impact upon the environment and
order a Negative Declaration be issued. "
Mrs. Clemens, 353C Jennings Street, stated that she was opposed to
the project .
After discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Porter, seconded by
Commissioner Ritchie and carried unanimously that Resolution No. 7153 be
adopted with the following resolve: "Resolved that the City Planning Com-
mission hereby finds that the proposed project could not have a significant
effect on the environment and does hereby overrule the determination of the
Department of City Planning and order issuance of a negative declaration."
A standard tape cassette recording of the proceedings is available in
the offices of the Department of City Planning for public listening or tran-
scription.
CU74 .5 - THIRD STREET SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MEADE AVENUE
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR A MORTUARY
ESTABLISHMENT; IN A C-2 DISTRICT.
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director-Implementation (Zoning Admin-
istrator) , referred to land use and zoning maps to describe the subject
property which is a rectangular corner parcel with 100 feet of frontage on
Third Street and 102 feet of frontage on Meade Avenue for an area of
approximately 10,000 square feet. The applicant proposed to construct a
new mortuary establishment on the site as a relocation facility for the
existing Bayview Mortuary located at 51C7 Third Street. A parking lot for
11 automobiles would be located at the rear of the property with access from
Meade Avenue; and the applicant had proposed certain traffic modifications
in the area which would have to be approved by the Department of Public
Works.
Carl A. Scholz, Architect for the applicant, remarked that the Com-
mission had disapproved a previous application for a mortuary on the
subject site on March 1, 1973; and he indicated that the traffic plan for
the proposed facility had been changed during the interim. He stated that
he had worked with the Department of Public Works to develop a traffic
plan which would involve proper signing and installation of traffic barriers;
and he believed that those measures would alleviate any traffic problems
which might be caused by the facility, fie emphasized that mortuary traffic
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -3- MARCH 7, 1974
proceeds at a slow and careful pace; and he remarked that the volume of
business done by a mortuary is limited and somewhat predictable. He stated
that the use would not be highly visible; end he indicated that he would be
willing to answer any questions which might be raised by the Commission.
Alec Pitcher, Executive Director of the Model Cities Housing Program
and formerly Chairman of the Bayview-Hunters Point Coordinating Council,
stated that the Coordinating Council had approved establishment of a
mortuary on the subject property. He advised t'ae Commission that the
operator of the mortuary has a good reputation in the community and has
operated the only mortuary in the area thus far. However, additional space
is needed for the mortuary operation; and, in order to provide that additional
space, he urged that the subject application be approved.
Reverend Bedford of the Mascedonia Missionary Baptist Church and a
member of the Human Rights Commission stated that the operator of the
mortuary is a Christian businessman with a good reputation in the community;
and he felt that the Commission should approve the subject application.
Eloise Westbrook, a resident of the subject neighborhood, remarked
that the Commission seemed all too willing to allow "automobile mounds"
to be established in the neighborhood; yet, whenever people try to beautify
the area, they tend to meet opposition. She stated that the area needs new
businesses; and the race of the people bringing in the new businesses made
no difference as long as the subject neighborhood begins to look like other
parts of the city.
E. James Edner, Pastor of a Methodist Church in the neighborhood,
stated that he was in favor of the subject application.
A representative of the Bayview-Hunters Point Office of the Economic
Opportunity Council felt that everyone in the community was in support of
the application. The operator of the mortuary had helped the neighborhood
to obtain a new school; and now the neigborhood is trying to lend him a
helping hand .
Reverend Drummel, representing a baptist organization, stated that he
had been sent to support the subject application.
Mrs. Clemens, 3538 Jennings Street, stated that she had been concerned
about the traffic which would be generated by the proposed facility; however,
having heard the comments which had been made by previous speakers, she
had changed her mind and was now in favor of the applicant's proposal.
•
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -10- MARCH 7 , 1974
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, stated that there is a need
for modern mortuary service in the subject neighborhood; and he remarked
that the proposed mortuary would be located on a site which is sufficiently
isolated from residential uses. He stated that the design and layout of
the proposed building was such that the business would be well-screened
from public view; and he believed that the traffic activity resulting from the
proposed use should not create any conflicts which would unreasonably
affect traffic flow in the vicinity. Therefore, he recommended that the
application be approved subject tosix.specifiC' conditions which were con-
tained in a draft resolution which he had prepared for consideration by the
Commission.
President Newman asked if the conditions which had been recommended
by the Director would be satisfactory to the applicant. Gary Moss, Attorney
for the applicant, repJi^J •"* che affirmative.
After further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Porter, seconded
by Commissioner Ritchie and carried unanimously that the draft resolution
be a^^pted as City Planning Commission Resolution No. 7154 and that the
application be approved subject to the conditions which had been recom-
mended by the Director.
CU74 .6 - 5 WOOD STREET, WEST LINE , 422 .4 FEET NORTH
OF GEARY BOULEVARD.
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR AN ELEEMOSY-
NARY OR PHILANTHROPIC INSTITUTION. THE
APPLICATION PROPOSES A MEMORIAL TO THE
HINDUSTAN GADAR PARTY WHICH WILL CONSIST
OF A MUSEUM AND A LIBRARY AND WILL BE USED
FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ; IN AN R-2 DISTRICT.
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director-Implementation (Zoning Admini-
strator) , referred to land use and zoning maps to describe the subject property
which is an irregular parcel with 49.9 feet of frontage on Wood Street, a
width of 67.7 feet along the rear property line, and a depth of 125 feet for a
total area of 7053.5 square feet. The property, which is vacant, is owned
by the Government of India . The Consulate General of India , in the name
of and on behalf of the President of India, had filed the subject application
which requested authorization to construct a one-story building above a
garage for 8 automobiles to house a memorial to the Hindustan Gadar Party
which will consist of a museum and library and office to be used for edu-
cational purposes.
R. C. Arora, Consul General of India, stated that he, as well as the
President and Prime Minister of India, felt strongly about the importance
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -11- MARCH 7, 1974
of the proposed project. He stated that the Hindustan Gadar Party was
formed approximately 50 years ago when India was planning to effect its
independence from the British. He remarked that it is an unusual situtation
for a political party to be formed thousands of miles away from the country
with which it is concerned; and he felt that it was a tribute to the United
State s that it had permitted the party to be formed . He stated that the Indian
Government had given a considerable sum of money to be used to build
a memorial to the Gadar Party; and the memorial would also serve as a symbol
of friendship between India and the United States. He indicated that the
memorial which had been planned would be small and would not use most
of the space available on the site. He believed that the facility would en-
hance the aesthetic value of the neighborhood; and it would provide the area
with a library and a park. He advised the Commission that the site will be
landscaped to the satisfaction of the Department of City Planning. In con-
clusion, he stated that the proposed building had been designed for free
by the architectural firm of John Portman and Associates; and he indicated
that an architect from India is also working on the project.
President Newman asked about the type and number of visitors which
might be expected to visit the proposed facility. Mr. Arora replied that
it was really toe early to estimate the number of visitors which might be
attracted to the memorial; however, he expected that the facility would be
visited by people from India, by Indians from the Bay Area, and by people
who have an interest in India . He did not believe that the memorial would
be visted frequently.
President Newman then inquired about the size of the memorial's staff
and asked how many days a week the facility would be open to the public.
Mr. Arora replif»d that present plans call for the memorial to be open only
on weekends. The facility would have no permanent staff but would rely
on volunteers .
Commissioner Farrell suggested that a watchman should be hired if
the museum is to contain valuable artifacts. Mr. Arora responded that a
burglar alarm system was being considered.
President Newman advised the Commission that several letters had
been received in support of the subject application and that one letter had
been received in opposition to the proposal.
Gerson Biskind, 77 Lupine Avenue, stated that he had discussed the
proposed project with Mr. Arora on several occasions; and he felt that the
proposed building would be a fine addition to any neighborhood . Since
the facility would only be open two days each week, he did not anticipate
any parking problems , especially if the facility were to be open only on
weekends when the Fireman's Fund Insurance Company offices are closed.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -12- MARCH 7 , 1974
Bernard Kernfeld, Corresponding Secretary of the Laurel Heights
Improvement Association, stated that he had written a letter in support
of the application. He had also sent letters to 28 property owners in
the area; and, with one exception, they had all been in support of the
applicant's proposal. He felt that 8 parking spaces should be sufficient
for the proposed use; and he noted that the proposed building would be
well within the height limit which applies to the subject property.
Mr. Lenhart, a resident of Wood Street, spoke in opposition to the
application. He believed that the proposed facility would have a very
substantial impact on a relatively secluded and quiet residential area .
He remarked that Wood Street is an inconvenient thoroughfare for through
traffic insofar as such traffic must make four right turns; and, as a
result, access to the facility would be difficult. He informed the Com-
mission that most of the people living on Wood Street were opposed to
the application because they believed that it would create a parking
problem .
Renetta Southcott, owner of property at 11 Wood Street, stated that
she had submitted a petition with 40 signatures in opposition to the
subject application. She stated that the people who had signed the
petition wished to preserve the R-2 residential character of the neigh-
borhood; and they felt that the subject application should be disapproved.
If the subject application were to be approved, she did not believe that
8 off-street parking spaces would be sufficient; and, in conclusion, she
advised the Commission that the property has not been well-maintained
in the pa st .
Commissioner Ritchie remarked that it seemed to him that a new
building which would be used only a couple of days each week would
be preferable to a vacant lot which has not been well-maintained.
Mrs. Southcott replied that foreign governments, as well as in-
dividuals, must be judged on their past record; and, since the Govern-
ment of India had failed to maintain the vacant lot properly, she felt
that there was reason to doubt that the proposed building would be
adequately maintained. Che noted that Mr. Arora had stated that there
was not a great deal of money available for the proposed facility; and,
that being the case, she wondered how much would be spent on mainte-
nance. She was also concerned about the fact that no watchman would
be employed for the facility. While disapproval of the application might
cause bad feelings between the United States Government and the Govern-
ment of India, she felt that it would still be desirable for the Commission
to disapprove the application.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -13- MARCH 7, 1974
Freda Lerch, 29 Lupine Avenue, noting that Mr. Arora had stated
that the facility would be open only two days a week, asked if the Com-
mission could establish a condition limiting the operation to that extent.
President Newman replied in the affirmative and asked if approval of the
application would be satisfactory to Mrs . Lerch if such a condition were
to be established.
Mrs . Lerch replied that she had no objection to the proposed building
per se; however, if the application were to be approved, she felt the build-
ing should be allowed to be open only two days a week and that more than
8 off-street parking spaces should be provided.
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, stated that the proposed museum
and library would provide a needed cultural institution for San Francisco's
Indian community; and he noted that the subject site is of particular historic
significance to the Hindustan Gadar Party. He believed that the 8 off-street
parking spaces proposed would be sufficient to meet the demand which would
be generated by the use as described; and he remarked that the appearance
and function of the proposed building would be compatible with the character
of the neighborhood. Therefore, he recommended that the application be
approved subject to five conditions, as follows:
1. The proposed building shall be constructed in general
conformity with the preliminary plan titled: "Gadar
Memorial Building for the Indian Government" dated
January 17, 1974 on file with this application marked
"Exhibit A".
2. Signs, if any, shall be limited to one identifying
sign in compliance with Section 506 (b) of the City
Planning Code.
3 . Occupancy of said building shall be limited to
museum and library purposes and shall not involve
the conduct of educational classes and other
activities resulting in large groups of people in
the building at any one time.
4 . Said building shall be open to the general public
only two days per week; however, upon specific
appointment, the building may be open to small
groups at other times between the hours of 10:00 a.m.
and 10:00 p.m.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -14- MARCH 7, 1974
5. Landscaping shall be installed and maintained
in conformity with plans on file or developed in
cooperation with the Department of City Planning.
President Newman asked if the conditions which had been recommended
by the Director would be acceptable to the applicant. Mr. Arora replied in
the affirmative. With regard to the issue of parking, he indicated that he
had consulted experts who believed that the 8 off-street parking spaces
being proposed would be sufficient . He admitted that the property had not
been maintained as well as it should have been in the past; however, he
assured the Commission that the proposed facility would be well maintained.
He believed that the proposed building would add to the aesthetic value of
the community.
President Newman recommended that a burglar alarm system be in-
stalled in the building. Mr. Arora replied that such a system would be in-
stalled .
After further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Porter, seconded
by Commissioner Ritchie and carried unanimously that Resolution No. 7155
be adopted and that the application be approved subject to the conditions
which had been recommended by the Director.
ZM74.2 - 366 - 9TH STREET, SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF
SHERIDAN STREET.
M-l TO C-3-S WITH CONSIDERATION TO BE GIVEN
TO C-M, ALSO.
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director-Implementation (Zoning Admin-
istrator) , referred to land use and zoning maps to describe the subject pro-
perty which is an L-shaped corner lot with an area of 2 ,703 square feet.
He stated that a portion of the subject property is presently occupied by
a 40-unit motel with a restaurant; and the remainder of the site is presently
used for parking. The applicant had requested that the property be re-zoned
to C-3-S or C-M so that the remainder of the property could be developed
with 9 additional motel units. Mr. Steele stated that the subject property
is located in an M-l district which is developed with a mixture of industrial,
manufacturing and warehouse uses and non-conforming dwellings; and he
indicated that the nearest C-3-S or C-M district is located one block to the
north of the site .
Fred Campagnoli, Attorney for the applicant, stated that construction
of motel rooms is not permitted in an M-l district; and, therefore, his
client had requested that the subject property be reclassfied so that the
nine additional motel units could be constructed . He remarked that the
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -15- MARCH 7, 1274
subject property is located only one block from the Bay Bridge and the
Ninth Street freeway off-ramps; and, as a result, it is a logical location
for a motel facility. The original facility was constructed prior to 1960
and presently has legal non-conforming use status. He informed the Com-
mission that the motel is presently using all of the subject property as
well as an additional lot which had not been included in the subject appli-
cation. While the subject block is zoned for light industrial use, 2 6 of
the 52 parcels in the block are occupied by frame dwellings. Furthermore,
no new construction has taken place in the block since 1960 which could
be considered to be light industrial in character; and, in view of the number
of vacancies in the area, there appeared to be little need for the present
industrial zoning. He believed that the addition of 9 motel units would
improve the neighborhood; and he did not feel that approval of the subject
application would result in an unconscionable violation of the City Planning
Code. He remarked that the subject property is located near the proposed
Yerba Buena Center which will create a need for additional motels and hotels;
and he emphasized that the property is located only one and one half blocks
from C-3-S and C-3 districts in which motels are permitted as a principal
use. The new motel rooms being proposed would add additional ad valorem
taxes , they would add to hotel tax revenues , and they would provide addi-
tional employment. As a result, he felt that the favorable aspects of the
project far out-weighed the objection of the technical spot-zone.
No one else was present to speak in favor of or in opposition to the
subject application.
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, remarked that the predominant
development in the subject neighborhood is light industry and warehousing
with the exception of some residential uses, particularly in mid-block areas.
He stated that the present legally existing non-conforming use motel could
continue to exist with no expiration date. Reclassification of the property
would grant to the applicant and to his property a property right and privilege
not available to other properties located in a similar situation in the area;
and, for that reason; the reclassification would constitute a spot-zone of
questionable legality. He remarked that the applicant had not shown any
way in which public necessity, convenience or general welfare would bene-
fit from the requested reclassification. For those reasons, he strongly
recommended that the application be disapproved.
President Newman stated that it seemed to him that the improvements
planned by the applicant were reasonable; end he felt that the expansion
project should be permitted as a matter of equity. He asked if there were
any way that the expansion project could be permitted without the requested
re-zoning. The Director replied in the negative.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -IS- MARCH 7, 1974
Commissioner Ritchie stated that he had been surprised to hear
the Director's negative recommendation. He remarked that the subject
neighborhood used to be clearly industrial in character; however, the
area has changed as many industries have left San Francisco. He noted
that one of the anchors of the neighborhood is the Western Furniture Mart
which is located at Ninth and Market Streets; and he remarked that several
motels had been constructed to serve salemen visiting that facility, one
of the best of which was the one presently under consideration. He felt
that the subject motel had contributed substantially to the up-grading of
the neighborhood; and he did not believe that the applicant's proposal
to add a small number of rooms to the motel was at all unreasonable. He
stated that he did not believe in tying people's hands when they are trying
to improve their businesses, especially when the businesses involved
are an asset to their neighborhood; and, for that reason, he moved that
reclassification of the property to C-M be approved.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Porter. She stated that
she agreed with the comments which had been made by Commissioner Ritchie;
and she remarked that she had been under the impression that the staff of
the Department of City Planning was reconsidering the absolute ban on resi-
dential developments in industrial areas which has been in effect since the
new zoning ordinance was adopted in 1950. She emphasized that the sub-
ject motel is well maintained; and she felt that the proposed expansion
should be approved.
Commissioner Farrell asked if sufficient parking would be available for
the additional units. Mr. Campagnoli replied in the affirmative, stating
that off-street parking spaces would be provided on an adjacent lot as well
as beneath the new units.
Commissioner Farrell assumed that there must be a need for the addi-
tional units if the applicant was willing to spend money for their con-
struction; and he indicated that he would vote in favor of the proposed re-
classification.
President Newman stated that he was concerned about the Director's
negative recommendation; and he asked if the Commission would be
violating the principles of zoning by approving the subject application.
The Director replied that he felt that the Commission would be violating
the principles of zoning to a high degree if it were to approve the application,
When the question was called, the Commission voted 3 to 1 to adopt
Resolution No. 7156 and to approve reclassification of the subject property
from M-l to C-M . Commissioners Farrell, Porter, and Ritchie voted "Aye";
Commissioner Newman voted i:No"-.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -17- MARCH 7, 1974
At 3:40 p.m. President Newman announced a 5-minute recess. The
Commission reconvened at 3:45 p.m. and proceeded with hearing of the
remainder of the agenda.
EE73.140 - CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR AN C-UNIT APARTMENT BUILD-
ING PROPOSED FOR THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
ROSSI AVENUE AND TURK BOULEVARD .
Selina Bendix, Environmental Review Officer, summarized the report
and recommended a series of changes in the text cf the document.
James Garrett, 73 Rossi Avenue, stated that he and Mrs. Walton had
submitted a two-page statement concerning the Environmental Impact Re-
port. President Newman replied that the points raised in the letter had
been included in the draft report.
Lloyd Colvin, the developer, Suggested two changes in the draft of
the report to reflect matters of fact .
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, recommended that the Com-
mission find the final Environmental Impact Report to be adequate, accurate,
and objective and to certify the completion of the report. He also re-
commended that the Commission find that the project, as proposed, will
not have a significant effect on the environment.
After further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Porter,
seconded by Commissioner Ritchie and carried unanimously that Resol-
ution No. 7157 be adopted, that the final Environmental Impact Report
be found to be adequate, accurate, and objective, that the report be
certified as complete, and that it be found chat the project, as proposed,
will not have a significant effect on the environment .
A standard tape cassette recording of the proceedings is available
in the files of the Department of City Planning for public listening or
transcription.
CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF
A BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR AN 8 -UNIT APARTMENT
BUILDING PROPOSED FOR THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF TURK
BOULEVARD AND STANYAN STREET.
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, remarked that the Commission
had initiated the subject discretioncry review during its meeting on De^
combers, 1?74. He recommended that the building permit application be
approved for the following reasons:
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -1C- MARCH 7, 1974
1. The applicant has met with the staff of the Depart-
ment of City Planning to develop a building design
that would be compatible with development on the
Turk Street frontage and in the vicinity.
2. The applicant has made the following significant
changes in the proposed building:
a . Changing its orientation to Turk Street
b . Modifying the exterior
c. Modifying the garage plan
3 . The building is in fact comparable in scale to develop-
ment on the Turk Street frontage and with the two ad-
jacent buildings on the Stanyan Street frontage.
The Director also noted that the Commission had been requested to
conduct a discretionary review of the building permit application for an-
other 8 -unit apartment building proposed for the northeast corner of Turk
Boulevard and Rossi Avenue, which project was the subject of the Environ-
mental Impact Report which had just been adopted by the Commission. He
recommended that that request for discretionary review be denied for the
same reasons he had cited in recommending that the permit application for
an identical building on the northeast corner of Rossi Avenue and Turk
Boulevard be approved.
Commissioner Ritchie stated that he wished to hear from the people
who had requested the Commission to undertake discretionary review of
the two permit applications.
James Garrett, 73 Rossi Avenue, remarked that members of the Com-
mission had visited and were familiar with one of the few single-family
residential neighborhoods in San Francisco which is not sealed off by iron
gates or other types of barriers; and he urged the Commission to conduct
discretionary reviews of both permit applications for the purpose of pro-
tecting the single-family residential character of the neighborhood .
After further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Ritchie,
seconded by Commissioner Porter, and carried unanimously that discre-
tionary reviews be conducted of both building permit applications and
that the reviews be conducted simultaneously.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -19- MARCH 7, 1974
Harold Dobbs, attorney for Drake Builders, stated that he felt that the
two building permit applications should be considered simultaneously; and,
as a result, he had no objections to the procedure which had been decided
upon by the Commission. In his opinion, the two subject properties had
never been developed with single family homes because the land was far
too expensive and because street traffic on Turk Boulevard is far too busy to
be compatible with single-family residences. He stated that the buildings
which his client proposed to construct would have a height of less than 30
feet, which is the approximate height of existing buildings in the area; and
he remarked that the driveways of both buildings have been oriented on Turk
Boulevard rather than on Rossi Avenue or Ctanyan Street. He stated that
a number of signatures were on file in support of the two buildings; and he
emphasized that it is more difficult to obtain signatures in support of a
particular project than it is to obtain signatures in opposition to it. He
advised the Commission that the two sites had been purchased at. a public
sale; and he indicated that the present owners had thoroughly investigated
the zoning of the properties and had been advised by the staff of the De-
partment of City Planning that 8 units could be constructed on each site.
Furthermore, changes had been made in the plans for the two buildings in
response to suggestions which had been made by the staff of the Depart-
ment of City Planning. He remarked that the Director of Planning had
originally issued a negative declaration for the building at the northeast
corner of Rossi Avenue and Turk Boulevard; and, because that determination
had been overruled by the Commission, the developer had gone to consider-
able expense to prepare an Environmental Impact Report for that project.
Plans for the two buildings were identical; and both buildings would have
larger rear yards than would have been required prior to enactment of the
Interim Residential Zoning Controls . He felt that both buildings would be
attractive; and he noted that a number of other apartment buildings exist
in the area on Turk Boulevard and on Arguello Street. In conclusion, he
remarked that other uses of the subject sites would make little sense; and
he urged the Commission to approve both building permit applications.
President Newman, reviewing a map which had been submitted by
Mr. Dobbs which indicated property owners who were in favor of or opposed
to the two buildings, observed that most of the property owners in the block
on which the Stanyan Street and Turk Boulevard building would be located
appeared to be in favor of that building while most of the property owners
in the block on which the other building would be located seemed to be
opposed to that building. Mr. Dobbs attributed the difference to the vagaries
of human nature. He pointed out that the two subject properties are the
last two vacant parcels in the area; and, while the zoning of the property
would permit the construction of larger buildings, his client did not feel
that he could construct anything less than was being proposed.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -20- MARCH 7, 1974
President Newman asked for a show of hands of individuals present
in support of the building permit applications . Approximately eight
individuals responded . He then asked for a show of hands of those
present in opposition to the applications; and most of the people in the
room responded .
Mr. Garrett remarked that the developer had originally purchased
four lots in the subject r.eighborhood , two of which had since been sold;
yet, he had turned down an offer for purchase of the two subject properties
made by a buyer who wanted to build a pair of flats, in spite of the fact
that the offer had met the developer's asking price. In spite of the fact
that Mr. Dobbs had elaborated on the changes which had been made in
the plans for the two buildings, he continued to be of the opinion that it
is not possible "to make chicken salad cut of chicken feathers".
Ann Milton, 67 Rossi Avenue, read the following prepared statement:
"I have lived at 57 Rossi Ave for 15 years. This is a
Two-flat building occupied by related members of one family.
We bought the building with my parents as refugees from a
short try at suburban living.
''In recent years the residents of family oriented neighbor-
hoods in San Francisco have watched in irritation as builders,
in order to 'maximize their return on their investment' , have
evolved the philosophy that the best land, use is the greatest
number of units at the least cost. Nov/, the greatest number
of units can be figured (using the old or the new math) if you
know the dimensions of the lot and the zoning. By using this
table, and long division you can compute the units. Lucky
the builder whose quotient shows a remainder greater than
half the divisor because then he is allowed one more full unit.
Thus, this most beautiful city in the world has become dotted
with large stucco cubes with little pebble flocking, that stand
as monuments to arithmetic.
"After computing the number of units allowed you con-
tact a building designer. A building designer, given the size,
shape and grade of the lot, by eliminating such frills as din-
ing rooms, linen closets, and windows in the bathrooms, can
maximize the number of bathrooms and bedrooms within this
maximum number of units . The building designer, if he is
lucky, will already have in his files, plans from a previous
job which can be adapted by a few erasures to fit your needs.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MMETING -21- MARCH 7, 1974
"Now, we residents are not alone in finding this
detrimental to family-oriented neighborhoods. The
Commission has addressed itself to this problem, and
ordered a city-wide study. Thank You . It has votes a set
of interim controls . Thank You .
"At the time our area was developed, the builders
did not play this numbers game and saw fit to build
single family homes and flats. They are spacious and
well-built. Because of this and the playground they
are ideal family residences and are almost all owner-
occupied . We are on our first recycling. Homes are
being bought by young people who do not wish to raise
their children in the sterile boredom of suburbia .
"This is the situation. . .Past building, by luck,
and future building, thanks to the Commission, will
conform to this family pattern. We are before you
today asking you to deny the permits for these, one-
time, multi-unit buildings. They would add 38 bed-
rooms and 36 baths to the neighborhood and would
be totally incompatible with the one and two-family
character of Francisco Heights ."
Mitchell Cutler, 2 940 Turk Boulevard, stated that he had written a
letter to the Commission in his capacity as President of the Francisco
Heights Civic Club. He stated that most of the buildings in Francisco
Heights contain only one to two units; and, as a result, the neighborhood
is clearly characterized as a family area. He remarked that the developer
of the two subject parcels of property had also owned two lots on Parker
Avenue; and those lots, having been sold, will be developed with single-
family homes. He also noted that there are currently no apartment buildings
on Turk Boulevard between Parker Avenue and Willard Street . While the
applicant's representative had claimed that it would not be economically
feasible to construct two-family dwellings on the two subject properties ,
he disagreed; and he advised the Commission that two-family dwellings
are being sold for more than $100,000. If two-unit buildings were to be
constructed on the subject sites , one of the dwelling units would more
than likely be owner-occupied whereas units in larger apartment buildings
would probably all be occupied by tenants .
Arden Danekas, representing the Planning Area for the Richmond,
emphasized that the Environmental Impact Report which had been prepared
for the project at Rossi Avenue and Turk Boulevard contained a statement
to the effect that the proposed project would not be in conformity with the
Master Plan; and he believed that the building would also be incompatible
with the density and bulk standards specified in the Urban Design Plan.
MILUTEG CF REGULAR MEETING -22- MARCH 7, 1974
William Kubel , owner of property across the street from the Rossi-
Avenue and Turk Boulevard site , stated that he would not be opposed
to construction of a two-family dwelling on the property; however, he
was definitely opposed to construction of an 8-unit building. He stated
that the neighborhood already has a parking problem; and he did not
understand why the neighborhood should be deprived of its beauty solely
for the almighty dollar. He felt that approval of the two subject applications
would establish a precedent which would encourage development of similar
buildings in the future; and, since residents of the neighborhood did not
wish to have the character of the area changed, they were urging that the
building permit applications be disapproved.
Elmer James, 5G Rossi Avenue, stated that the two subject lots have
been very profitable to their owners in the past, having been leased for a
number of years to Foster end Kleiser. Ho also remarked that the neighbor-
hood already has a serious parking problem. Automobiles are often parked
on the streets for periods ranging from 3 to 12 days, including people living
in campers; and, meanwhile, automobiles belonging to residents of the
neighborhood are ticketed .
Julius Zederman, 88 Rossi Avenue, seated that he has lived next door
to one of the subject properties since 1940; and he indicated that his wife
had encouraged Foster and Kleiser to install a billboard on the property
and maintain the property as a small neighborhood park. Gince the City
had required removal of the billboard, the property had become unsightly;
and he felt that it should be developed. However, he felt that the eight
dwelling units being proposed would be excessive. He advised the Com-
mission that his wife had interviewed 72 residents of the neighborhood
who were opposed to having the character of the area changed .
A member of the audience who resides at 4C3 Parker Avenue stated
that he is a renter; and he indicated that ho objected to the "block buster"
buildings which have appeared all over Gen Francisco, ruining some of
the city's best residential neighborhoods. In conclusion, he stated that
he intended to leave Gen Francisco when he finally gets his master degree.
Mrs. Gamuel Rodctsky, 165 Gtanyan Gtreet, stated that she had called
the Department of City Planning before purchasing her property and had been
advised that all of the other properties in the area were zoned R-l or R-2 .
Ghe indicated that the neighborhood already has a parking problem; and,
if the proposed C-unit apartment buildings were to be constructed, each
unit would probably be occupied by 4 to G students, all owning automobiles,
while only one off-street parking space would be provided for each of the
units .
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -23- MARCH 7 , 1974
President Newman asked how many units are permitted on the subject
properties by the present R-3 zoning . The Director replied that 8 units
are permitted by the R-3 zoning; and he indicated that the developer in-
tended to construct 8 units on each site.
Commissioner Porter asked how many dwelling units would be permitted
on each of the properties if the properties were zoned R-2 . The Director
replied that 6 dwelling units would be permitted on each of the sites under
those circumstances.
Commissioner Porter asked if the staff had made an effort to work with
the applicant to avoid the necessity for e:rtensive curb cuts on the subject
properties . The Director replied in the affirmative and indicated that the
number of driveways had been minimized .
Commissioner Ritchie asked if he were correct in his understanding
that both applications, when filed, had been in conformity with zoning
regulations then in effect and that the applicant had not requested any
special consideration. The Director replied that Commissioner Ritchie's
understanding was correct.
President Newman reflected on the fact that the two buildings, as pro-
posed, were completely legal; and he remarked on the fact that the buildings
would contain only two units more than would be permitted if the properties
were to be re-zoned to R-2 .
Commissioner Ritchie asked if the building permit applications had
been filed before the neighborhood request for "down zoning" had been
filed . The Director replied in the affirmative .
Commissioner Ritchie then observed that the Commission could not
hazard a guess as to the number or nature of tenants who would occupy
units in the proposed buildings; and he indicated that economics have
never been a proper concern of the Commission. If the Commission were
to disapprove the permit applications, it would be acting on an emotional
basis rather than on a legal basis; and, under the circumstances, he did
not see how the Commission could disapprove the applications.
The Director stated that the Commission could legally disapprove the
permit applications if, in its discretion, a determination were made that
construction of the proposed buildings would be contrary to the health,
safety, and general welfare of residents of the city.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -24- MARCH 7, 1974
Commissioner Porter remarked that San Franciscans in San Francisco
neighborhoods make it very difficult for the City Planning Commission when
they do not request re-zoning before specific projects are proposed. She
noted that the two subject properties had been zoned R-3 for many years;
and the request for re-zoning to R-2 had not been filed until building permit
applications for completely legal R-3 buildings were already on file. Further-
more, the developer had agreed to modify his plans as requested by the staff
of the Department of City Planning; and she felt that the revised treatment
of the drive ways represented a major concession on the developer's part.
She also emphasized that the buildings which had been proposed would
contain only two units more than would be permitted if the properties were
zoned R-2; and, if that had not been the case, she might have voted for
disapproval of the building permit applications.
Commissioner Ritchie asked if the developer presently owns the
subject properties. After receiving an. affirmative response from Mr. Dobbs,
Commissioner Ritchie remarked that the two lots had been allowed to de-
teriorate after the billboards had been removed , even though the landscaping
could have been maintained. Eventually the lots were placed on the market
for sale; and someone purchased them with the knowledge that they were
zoned R-3 . Under the circumstances, he did not think that it was fair for
people who could have purchased the properties to come in at the last mo-
ment to prevent the purchaser from developing his property in accordance
with R-3 standards . He felt that the owner of the properties has a legal
right to develop the properties as proposed; and, in any case, the difference
between the 8 units permitted under R-3 zoning and the 6 units which would
be permitted under R-2 zoning did not seem to him to be very significant.
The owners of the new buildings may or may not live on the premises; but
the same circumstances would apply if the properties were to be developed
with 2-unit buildings. He indicated that he owns flats which he does
not occupy. He also remarked that it has been the policy of the Commission
not to be concerned with the economic feasibility or non-feasibility of pro-
jects proposed .
After further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Ritchie and
seconded by Commissioner Porter that the building permit for the building
to be located en the northeast corner of Turk Boulevard and Rossi Avenue
be approved .
Commissioner Porter stated that the reason that she had seconded the
motion was that the developer had worked closely with the staff of the
Department of City Planning and had made considerable modifications in
his plans at the request of the staff; and she felt that people in San Francisco
should be able to expect some integrity from governmental agencies.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -25- MARCH 7, 1974
Commissioner Farrell stated that he was very sympathetic to maintenance
of family-oriented neighborhoods in San Francisco; however, legally, and
in his own good conscience, he believed that the developer was entitled
to build the two additional dwelling units in each of the buildings being
considered. Therefore, he indicated that he would support the motion for
approval of the building permit application.
President Newman asked if the Commission's approval of the building
permit application could be appealed. The Director replied in the affirmative,
indicating that the approval could be appealed to the Board of Permit Appeals
within ten days .
President Newman then noted that the City Planning Commission had
approved "down-zoning" for many residential neighborhoods in the city;
however, as a matter of equity, he felt that the Commission must be
extremely careful that it does not completely overturn the law. He stated
that he would support the motion for approval of the building permit
application .
When the question was called, the Commission voted unanimously to
adopt Resolution No. 7158 and to approve the building permit application
for the 8 -unit apartment building proposed for the northeast corner of Turk
Boulevard and Rossi Avenue.
Subsequently, it was moved by Commissioner Ritchie, seconded by
Commissioner Porter, and carried unanimously that Resolution No. 7159
be adopted and that the building permit application for the 8-unit apartment
building on the northeast corner of Turk Boulevard and Stanyan Street be
approved .
ZM73.32 - TURK BOULEVARD, NORTH LINE, BETWEEN PARKER
AVENUE AND A POINT 100 FEET EAST OF ARGUELLO
BOULEVARD, INCLUDING ALL LOTS PRESENTLY
ZONED R-3 WHICH FRONT ON EDWARD STREET,
WILLARD STREET NORTH , ROSSI AVENUE , STANYAN
STREET, BEAUMONT AVENUE AND PARKER AVENUE
R-3 TO AN R-2 DISTRICT.
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director-Implementation (Zoning Admin-
istrator) , referred to land use and zoning maps to describe the subject
properties totaling 51 lots with an aggregate area of 139,258 square feet
(3.2 acres) . He stated that two of the lots are vacant, 2 6 are developed
with one-family dwellings, 18 with two-family dwellings, 2 with three-
family dwellings, one with a 5-unit apartment building, one with a 6-unit
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -2 5- MARCH 7, 1974
apartment building and one with an llmnit apartment building. He stated
that the Commission had just approved building permit applications for
an 8-unit apartment building on each of the vacant lots; and, since chose
building permit applications had been filed prior to the filing of the appli-
cation for re-zoning, they would not be affected if the application were
to be approved .
Mrs. James Milton, 59 Rossi Avenue, stated that she was one of
the applicants. She indicated that she had begun work on the project
last August; and, because residents of the neighborhood had done all
of the work on the application themselves, they had not been able to
file the request prior to the time that the building permit applications
were filed for two vacant lots . She acknowledged that the neighborhood
was at fault insofar as it had not realized that the two vacant lots
were zoned R-3 and had not requested re-zoning at an earlier date;
however, in defense of the neighborhood, she pointed out that it would
be easy to assume that the existing pattern of development, consisting
of single-family homes and flats, had resulted from zoning restrictions.
When the two vacant parcels had been placed on the market, she had
called the Recreation and Park Department to ask if that agency would
accept the properties as a gift if she could raise funds to purchase
them. The response of that department had been negative, given the
proximity of Rossi Playground; and she agreed that there are other
neighborhoods in the city which are in greater need of open space.
Subsequently, she had proceeded on the re-zoning project; and, in
spite of the fact that the Commission had already approved building
permit applications'for the two vacant lots , she wished that the Com-
mission would act favorably on the request for re-zoning. She advised
the Commission that some of the flats in the subject neighborhood are
enormous in size; and she indicated that she lives in a flat which has
three bedrooms. Such units could easily be converted as long as the
neighborhood retains its R-3 zoning; and, for that reason, she felt
that it would be desirable to re-zone the area to R-2 . In conclusion,
she stated that she had submitted a map which showed the location of
properties whose owners had been contacted and who had expressed sup-
port of the application .
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, remarked that 85% of the
property within the subject area is presently developed with one- or
two-family dwellings; and he noted that the existing character of
development within the subject area is essentially the same as in the
abutting R-l and R-2 districts. He emphasized that the proposed re-
classification would not have a direct effect upon the two vacant parcels
since the building permit applications which had just been approved by
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -2 7- MARCH 7 , 1974
the Commission had been filed prior to the filing of the application for
reclassification. He remarked that the existing homes within the subject
area are well maintained and in good condition; and he indicated that the
land use plan of the master plan designates the subject area for low density
residential development. He also noted that substantial neighborhood
support for the re-zoning had been demonstrated during the course of the
Commission's meeting. Therefore, he recommended that the requested
reclassification of the subject properties from R-3 to R-2 be approved.
Commissioner Ritchie asked how the proposed re-zoning would affect
existing buildings which had been built to a higher density than would be
permitted in an R-2 district. The Director replied that those buildings
would be allowed to remain as legal non-conforming uses.
After further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Porter, seconded
by Commissioner Ritchie, and carried unanimously that Resolution No. 7160
be adopted and that the subject application be approved .
At 5:10 p.m. President Newman announced a five-minute recess. The
Commission reconvened at 5:15 p.m. and proceeded with hearing of the
remainder of the agenda .
CU74.7 - HOMEWOCD TERRACE, NORTH SIDE OF OCEAN
AVENUE 171 FEET EAST OF KEYSTONE WAY.
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR A PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF 172 DWELL-
ING UNITS, TO BE SOLD AS CONDOMINIUMS,
AND A COMMUNITY BUILDING; IN AN R-2 DISTRICT.
William Duchek, Planner III, referred to land use and zoning maps to
describe the subject property which has a width of approximately 520 feet
and a depth of approximately 470 feet for a total area of approximately
5. 36 acres. He stated that the applicants proposed a planned unit develop-
ment of 172 dwelling units consisting of approximately 102 two-bedroom
units and 703-bedroom units to be sold as condominiums. A community
building consisting of 1500 to 2000 square feet was also being proposed;
and that building could serve as a common meeting hall and or cooperative
day care facility. The plans called for approximately 97,804 square feet
of usable open space. 250 parking spaces were proposed, with owner
parking spaces in enclosed garages and visitor parking either open or in
carport structures . Maximum building height throughout the project would
be less than 40 feet. Mr. Duchek stated that the Commission had acted
on August 23, 1973, to certify as complete an Environmental Impact Report
entitled "Ocean Avenue Condominium Apartments" . He remarked that the
project described in the report was substantially the same as proposed in
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -20- MARCH 7, 1974
the current planned unit development; and, although the potential developer
of the project had been changed from Lee Turner, Turner Investment, Incor-
porated to Doric Development, Incorporated, the Department of City Planning
had determined that that Environmental Report would meet the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act applicable to the subject planned
unit development. In conclusion, he stated Lhat the Commission, in certifying
the completeness of the impact report, had found that the project as proposed
would not have an significant effect on the environment.
Mark Rafanelli, representing Doric Development , Incorporated, stated
that the only changes which his firm had made in plans for the project in-
volved a greater number of three-bedroom units and increased usage of bay
windows. He stated that the architects who had prepared the plans for the
project were present in the meeting room to respond to any questions which
might be raised by members of the Commission.
President Newman asked if any changes had been made in amenities
or in the amount of open space which would be available. Mr. Rafanelli
replied that more open space would be available than in the original plan;
and, in addition, a community building was being proposed. In response
to a further question raised by President Newman regarding the approximate
price of the proposed units, Mr. Rafanelli stated that the units would probably
sell for $45,000 or $50,000. He stated that 21 of the buildings in the pro-
posed project would contain from 8 to 12 units, 72 of the units would consist
of 2 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms on one level; and the remaining 100 units would
be designed as town houses.
President Newman, noting that several projects had been proposed for
the subject site in the past, asked if the proposed development would pro-
ceed if the subject application were to be approved. Mr. Rafanelli stated
that he assumed that the project would be built if the application were to
be approved.
Oscar Fisher, Chairman of the Zoning Committee of the West of Twin
Peaks Central Council, stated that he had appeared before the Commission
on a number of occasions to object to projects being considered; and he
indicated that he felt an obligation to appear in support of projects which
his organization had found to be acceptable. He stated that a number of
meetings had been held with the developers who had filed the subject
application; and he wished to compliment them on their plans and to re-
quest that the conditional use application be approved .
Henry Hinds, Vice-President of the Wcstwood Park Home Owners
Association, noted that his organization had violently opposed a high-rise
development which had previously been proposed for the subject site; and,
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -2C- MARCH 7, 1974
although they had supported the conditional use application for the last
smaller-scale project proposed for the property, he felt that the present
plans were at least 25% better than the previous plans in terms of the
total amenities which would be provided.
Ernest Reinke, 777 Faxon Avenue , and Mrs. Elsie Denarde, 28 Keystone
Way, inquired about the effect which the proposed project might have on
their properties. Members of the staff and architects for the applicants
explained the relationship between buildings in the proposed project and
homes located on the perimeter on the site.
Henry Christopherson, 34 Keystone Way, stated that he had watched
the subject property for a number of years; and he felt that the project
which was being proposed was quite good. Fie urged that the application
be approved.
Gloria Toro, 5S2 Wildwood Way, asked what effect the proposed de-
velopment would have on views from adjoining properties. An architect
for the applicant replied that all roof lines in the proposed project were
being kept below the living room floor-level of houses to the north on
Wildwood Way.
Al Hicks , President of a construction corporation and a real estate
broker, stated that he was trying to make sure that minorities get their
fair share of the "economic pie" in the community. He advised the Com-
mission that certain arrangements had been made with the previous applicant
which would have provided work opportunities for minority groups; but he
indicated that the present applicant had completely ignored their overtures.
He stated that he had no opposition to the project per se; however, he urged
that a condition be established which would require that the project proceed
in accordance with the affirmative action policy of the City and County of
San Francisco .
Alfredo Gordon, 12 5 Kenwood Way, hoped chat the project would take
the color scheme of the city into account and chat the new buildings would
not be beige in color.
The Director recommended that the Conditional Use Application be
a pproved subject to 15 specific conditions which were contained in a draft
resolution of approval which he had prepared for consideration by the Com-
mission. After summarizing the conditions, he recommended that the draft
resolution be adopted.
President Newman asked if the conditions which had been recommended
by the Director would be acceptable to the applicant. Mr. Rafanelli replied
in the affirmative .
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -30- MARCH 7 , 1974
President Newman asked the Director if he felt that an additional
condition should be included to satisfy the concern expressed by Mr. Hicks
The Director replied that he did not feel that it would be appropriate for
the Commission to establish such a condition. He stated that the city's
affirmative action policy applies only to contracts which the Commission
might enter using city funds; and, while he felt that affirmative action pro-
grams in the private sector should be pursued, he did not feel that the Com-
mission should make its zoning decisions subject to a requirement for
affirmative action programs.
Commissioner Ritchie remarked that labor and construction matters go
beyond the jurisdictionof the City Planning Commission; and he remarked
that the Commission had never in the past established conditions such as
the one which had been recommended by Mr. Hicks .
Mr. Rafanelli stated that he had not meant to ignore Mr. Hides; and he
indicated that he would be willing to discuss the matter with him.
After further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Ritchie,
seconded by Commissioner Porter, and carried unanimously that Resolution
No. 7161 be adopted and that the application be approved subject to the
conditions which had been recommended by the Director.
R11S.74.3 - TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION MAP
HOMEWOOD VILLAGE , LOTS 5 AND 8 IN
ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 32C3.
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, reported on this matter as
follows:
"The subdivision filed by Yarnell & Ron for Doric Develop-
ment, Inc. (owners of the subject property) would contain 172
dwelling units consisting of approximately 102 two-bedroom
units and 70 three-bedroom units. The general nature of the
subdivision and the surrounding existing development and
zoning is described in the City Planning Commission case re-
port prepared for Conditional Use Application No. CU74 .7
and the final Environmental Impact Report titled 'Ocean Avenue
Condominium Apartments' dated August 23, 1973.
"It is contemplated to subdivide the property through the
Condominium process so that each of the dwelling units will
be in separate ownership, but access roads, walkways, park-
ing areas, open space, structural end mechanical elements
of the dwellings, and the community building would be in com-
mon ownership.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -31- MARCH 7 , 1974
"Certain of the common areas consisting of parking spaces
and small open spaces such as balconies, roof decks and garden
areas would be granted as exclusive easements appurtenant to
individually owned dwelling units . The presently contemplated
selling price of the dwelling units would be $45,000 to $50,000.
The larger dwelling units in the development are designed to
attract families with children.
"The proposed subdivision of the approximately 6.54 acre
site is in conformity with R-2 zoning regulations applicable
to the site except for the rear yard provisions of the recently
adopted interim residential zoning controls. The purpose of
the above mentioned conditional use application, which pro-
poses the project ao a planned unit development, is to seek
modification of the rear yard requirements . "
At the conclusion of his report, the Director recommended that the
tentative map for the condominium subdivision be approved subject to
the conditions required by the City Planning Commission in Resolution
No. 7151 approving application CU74 .7 .
After discussion it was moved by Commissioner Porter, seconded by
Commissioner Farrell, and carried unanimously that the Director be
authorized to report to the Director of Public Works that the tentative
map for the Homewood Village condominium subdivision prepared by
Yarnell and Ron, dated February 1974, is in conformity with the Master
Plan and should be approved subject to the conditions required by the
City Planning Commission in Resolution No. 71G1 which authorized the
project as a planned unit developed.
EE74 .4 - APPEAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING RELATIVE TO
A 4 3 -UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING PROPOSED
AT 1720 BROADWAY.
Selina Bendix, Environmental Review Officer, explained the reasons
for the staff's decision to issue a negative declaration for the proposed
project .
Members of the audience who addressed the Commission on this matter
included David Hartley, the appellant; Richard Chessin, owner of a con-
dominium apartment at Pacific Avenue and Gough Street; Helen Som, architect
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -32- MARCH 7, 1974
for the applicant; Ralph Kaufman, a resident of the vicinity; and an owner
of a high-rise building in the neighborhood.
After discussion, it v/as moved by Commissioner Ritchie, seconded
by Commissioner Farrell and carried unanimously that Resolution No. 7152
be adopted to overrule the staff's negative declaration and to require that
an Environmental Impact Report be prepared. The resolution also announced
the Commission's intention of conducting a discretionary review of the
building permit application for this project.
A standard tape cassette recording of the proceedings is available in
the files of the Department of City Planning for public listening or tran-
scription .
CURRENT MATTERS CONTINUED
Peter Svirsky, Planner V (Zoning) gave the Commissioners two manuals
from the California Secretary of State pertaining to conflict of interest re-
quirements under State Law.
After discussion, the Commission requested that a special meeting
be scheduled for further discussion of this matter.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynn E . Pio
Secretary
D(X
SAN FRANCISCO
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
^Minutes of the Regular Meeting h«ld Thursday, March 14, 1974.
The City Planning Commission met pursuant to notice on Thursday, March 14, 1974,
at 2:00 p.m. in the meeting room at 100 Larkin Street.
PRESENT: Walter S Newman, President; Mrs. Charles B. Porter, Vice-President;
John C. Farrell, and John Ritchie, members of the City Planning
Commission.
ABSENT : Mortimer Fleishhacker, Thomas J. Mellon, and Hector E. Rueda, members
of the City Planning Commission.
The staff of the Department of City Planning was represented by Allan B. Jacobs,
Director of Planning; R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director - Implementation (Zoning
Administrator); Robert Passmore, Planner V (Zoning); Selina Bendix, Environmental
Review Officer; John Phair, City Planning Coordinator; Richard Gamble, Planner IV;
Charna Staten, Planner III; Dewayne Guyer, Planner III (Urban Design); Marie Zeller,
Planner III - Administrative; Emily Hill, Planner III - Transportation; Moira So,
Planner II; Wilbert Hardee, Planner II; Nathaniel Taylor, Planner II; Robert Feldman,
Planner II; and Lynn E. Pio, Secretary.
CURRENT MATTERS
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, reported that Peter Svirsky was on leave
to attend the funeral of his father in Florida.
The Director reminded the Neighborhood Plans Committee (Commissioners Rueda,
Fleishhacker, Ritchie) of a meeting scheduled for next Thursday, March 21, at 12:00
noon.
The Director informed the Commission that the Open Space Acquisition Fund
charter Amendment had been approved by the Board of Supervisors for inclusion on
the June ballot.
John Phair, City Planning Co-ordinator, distributed and commented on a list of
aeighborhood organizations in San Francisco which had been prepared by the staff,
ie stated that questionnaires had been sent to each of the organizations to provide
the staff of the Department of City Planning with information concerning their
zommittee structure, their contact people, the date of their elections, the size of
their membership, what their activities have been, and the subjects in which they
lave a particular interest. He also indicated that the staff may prepare informa-
tional bulletins to be distributed to the various neighborhood organizations.
• ''■ ■•
MINUTES OF REGULAP MEETING -2- MARCH 14, 1974
Commissioner Ritchie felt that the list of neighborhood organizations would be
very useful; and he suggested that copies of the list should be transmitted to the
Board of Supervisors. He noted that city-wide organizations such as San Francisco
Beautiful, SPUR and the Chamber of Commerce were not included on the list; but he
acknowledged that the principal purpose of the list was to identify groups which
represent particular areas of the city. In that regard, he noticed that the .
Presidio Terrace Association and the Westlake Park Association were not included
on the list; and he suggested that they be included.
Dewayne Guyer, Planner III * "Urban Design, presented and summarized a report
entitled "Sunnydale-Visitacion Valley Statistical Profile". The report is available
in the files of the Department of City Planning.
Donald Horanzy, a resident of Visitacion Valley, stated that he had expected
the report to be available at an earlier date; however, he was pleased that it was
finally available.
Charna Staten, Planner III, reported on elements of the Transit Preferential
Streets program which had been approved by the Board of Supervisors.
The Director continued his report with the following statement:
"On January 31 staff presented to the Commission a memorandum
recommending the format, substance and procedures that should be
required for Institutional Master Plans. As was described in the
memo the purposes of such ma star plans are to provide a basis on
which future proposed development can be reviewed by the Commission
and the public, and to extend city-wide a policy already endorsed
by the Commission in an area plan for the Haight-Ashbury. The
recommended procedure calls for an institution to submit its master
plan for public review before the Commission, but not endorsement,
well in advance of the institution submitting a formal application
to Commission for authorization of new construction.
"In response to comments of the Commission, staff has sent a
copy of the memorandum to each major hospital in the City, and had
sought ;hetr comments. Comments have been received from Kaiser
Hospital, Children's, Franklin, Harkness, St. Luke's, St. Josephs,
St. Francis, Pacific Medical Center, and U.C. Medical Center. The
comments can be summarized as generally favorable. Most of the
institutions mentioned the relatively fluid nature of their future
plans, and several mentioned limitations on their ability to measure
the effect of their plans on housing units and neighborhood character.
It was noted that hospitals that do not have the right of eminent
domain may find it difficult to disclose directions of future land
acquisition. However, all thought the general concept would be
helpful, and indicated their desire to cooperate.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -3- MARCH 14, 1974
"The memorandum was also sent to the San Francisco Comprehensive
Health Planning Council, and appeared to be favorably received in
the Council's Health Facilities & Services Subcommittee on Guidelines
meeting held yesterday.
"None of the comments would seem to require changes in the
memorandum presented to you in January and sent to the institutions
in February.
I
"The endorsement by the Commission of the format substance and
procedures to be required for institutional Master Plans as stated
in the memorandum would allow effectuation of the staff's recommend-
ation and I have prepared a draft resolution for this purpose."
Commissioner Ritchie remarked that the Conditional Use Application for expan-
sion of St. Mary's Hospital is still pending before the Board of Supervisors; and,
under the circumstances, he felt that it would be unwise for the Commission to adopt
new procedures until such time as final action is taken on that matter by the Board
of Supervisors. In his opinion, the staff recommendation for adoption of the new
procedures at this time had all of the earmarks of "end run".
The Director stated that the Commission had already acted on the St. Mary's
matter and remarked that adoption of the new guidelines could not legally affect
that prior action. In any case, he had not intended that the new guidelines should
have any effect on the approved expansion program for that hospital. He also noted
that the staff memorandum had specified that exceptions from the new procedures
could be granted in cases of development proposals already contemplated in master
plans reviewed by the Commission prior to the issuance, of the memorandum.
Commissioner Ritchie stated that he was not opposed to the new procedures which
were being recommended; however, since the new procedures had obviously grown out of
the St. Mary's controversy, he felt that it would better to postpone endorsement of
the new procedures until that matter has been settled by the Board of Supervisors.
President Newman asked if the proposed procedures would apply only to hospitals
or if they would also apply to other "institutions" such as universities, schools,
museums, and other public buildings.
Robert Passmore, Planner IV (Zoning), stated that the intent of the memo was to
extend the institutional guidelines stated in the Haight Ashbury Plan to the city as
a whole. He indicated that the procedures would apply to all institutions requiring
conditional use authorization from the Commission for their expansion programs; how-
ever, in most cases, it would be medical institutions which would be affected since
most of them are located in residential districts. He stated that public buildings
are subject to review by the Commission as to their conformity with the Master Plan.
President New nan remarked that the recent proposal to expand the Academy of
Sciences in Golden Gate Park had generated a great deal of controversy; and, since
there is no Master Plan for Golden Gate Park, he felt that it might be reasonable
to apply the new procedures to any new public juilding which might be proposed in the
park.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -4- MARCH 14, 1974
Commissioner Ritchie agreed and observed that it was possible that the scope
of the proposed procedures should be broadened. In any case, the issue before the
Commission was very technical in nature; and he wished to have more time to reflect
on it before adopting the draft resolution which had been prepared by the staff.
Commissioner Porter felt that the new procedures, instead of serving to avoid
confrontations, might in fact, pave the way for two separate confrontations on each
expansion proposal, one when the Master Plan issue is considered and the second when
1 the conditional use application is considered. She stated that Mr. Monardo, Admin-
istrator of Franklin Hospital, had sent over a copy of a resolution adopted by the
Commission in 1969 approving a master plan for expansion of that institution; yet
when specific plans for expansion of that facility are brought before the Commission
for consideration in the near future, she anticipated that there will be controversy.
The Director stated that Mr. Monardo had responded positively to the approach
which had been recommended by the staff in its memorandum.
Commissioner Ritchie felt that the new procedures would probably serve more to
soften such confrontations rather than to avoid them.
The Director stated that controversies tend to develop in the absence of firm
guidelines and procedures; and he observed that no controversies have developed
over the height of proposed buildings since the Height and Bulk Guidelines were
enacted into law. He stated that rational decisions can be made when guidelines and
laws exist. In the absence of guidelines or laws, confrontations inheritably
develop; and in such cases, the issue is usually determined by the side which has
the most power and noise.
President Netjman stated that the approach which had been recommended by the
staff seemed to him to be reasonable and rational.
Commissioner Ritchie stated that he did not disagree with President Newman;
however, he felt that action on the proposal should be postponed until final action
has been taken on the St. Mary's matter by the Board of Supervisors. He also ob-
served that only four of the seven members of the City Planning Commission were
present at today's meeting.
Commissioner Farrell stated that the discussion of the institutional master
plan procedures had not been a calendar item; and he, also, felt that matters of
such importance should not be acted on unless a full Commission is present.
Subsequently, it was moved by Commissioner Ritchie, seconded by Commissioner
Farrell, and carried 3 to 1 that action on the draft resolution which had been recom-
mended by the Director be postponed for 60 days. Commissioners Farrell, Porter, and
Ritchie voted "Aye"; Commissioner Newman voted "No".
DISCUSSION OF INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED IN FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
FORMS TO BE FILED UNDER STATE LAW.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -5- MARCH 14, 1974
The Director advised the Commission of changes which had been made in the
State's Conflict of Interest Legislation. Subsequently, the secretary summarized
the Secretary of States Information Manual on Disclosure of Assets and Income by
Office Holders and Candidates. Following the discussion, the Commission requested
the secretary to mail a copy of the summary to each member.
R74.0 - SIDEWALK EXTENSIONS: BRYANT STREET BETWEEN 21ST AND 23RD
STREET; HARRISON STREET BETWEEN 23RD AND 25TH STREETS .
Richard Gamble, Planner IV, reported on this matter as follows:
"Harrison and Bryant Streets are the only two broad streets
running the length of the Mission District which have not become
major thoroughfares. The Protected Residential Areas concept of
the Urban Design Plan is ideally suited to these streets. Accordingly,
about a third of the revenue sharing money for PRA was set aside
for the Mission District and these two segments of street were
selected to demonstrate the possibilities.
"On Harrison Street, diagonal parking will be provided on
portions of three blocks, but usually for no more than one-half
a block length. The increase in the number of stalls compensates
for removal of parking where the sidewalks are widened. The
resulting number of parking spaces will be the same as now exists.
"The sidewalk extensions alternate from one side «f the street
to the other, causing a gentle swaying in the alignment of the
traffic lanes. This allows the maximum widening, and will give
trees in these areas the greatest visual impact on the street
vista. The widening is as much as 18 feet, resulting in an
overall sidewalk width of 33 feet. The largest of the extension
areas, at the southeast corner of 24th Street, will be about 75
feet long, forming a sizable little plaza adjoining the shopping
street.
"Bryant Street is a transit street, hence the diagonal park-
ing scheme was not utilized due to anticipated problems of cars
backing into the bus (and traffic) lane. The sidewalk extensions
have for the most part been limited to bus stop areas and the school
bus zone at Bryant School. Two other extensions on the corners
preceding the bus stops are the only ones which eliminate parking
spaces. These extensions are 18 feet wiae, and serve to divert
traffic from the bus loading lane, as well as furnishing a prominent
space for locating trees. Those extensions at the bus stops, in contrast,
are only 12 feet wide, and eight feet along the school.
■mUXES OF REGULAR MEETING -6- MARCH 14, 1974
"The geometry of the overall design is literally 'sweeping
curves' } designed to accommodate street sweeping machines."
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, recommended that the increase of the
official sidewalk widths on Bryant and Harrison Streets be approved as in conformity
with the Itester Plan.
After discussion it was moved by Commissioner Porter, seconded by Commissioner
Farrell, and carried unanimously that the Director be authorized to report that the
increase of the official sidewalk widths on Bryant and Harrison Streets, as shown
on Bureau of Engineering map Q-20-295, revised March, 1974, is in conformity with
the Master Plan.
R74. 7 - SIDEWALK EXTENSIONS : PRECITA AVENUE BETWEEN FOLSOM STREET
AND COSO AVENUE .
Richard Gamble, Planner IV, reported on this matter as follows:
"Precita Avenue is parallel to and one block south of
Array Street at the foot of Bernal Heights. Almost a year
ago the street was made one way west bound because of its
comparative narrowness and because increasing eastbound
through traffic was using the street as a short cut to avoid
the congested Mission-Army intersection.
"The seven and eight-foot extensions will have the effect
of narrowing the roadway to 15 feet wide. The major visual
effect will occur at Coso; the extension on the southerly
side will make it more apparent that cars are not to enter.
The comparatively narrow widening on the north side anticipates
a future 3'sidewalk narrowing on Precita from Coso to Mission
Street. That narrowing was approved by the Commission in 1972.
"The project is consistent with the Protected Residential
Areas concept developed in the Urban Design Plan. The design
was developed by the Division of Traffic Engineering of the
Bureau of Engineering. Funding will come from gas tax sources."
The Director recommended that the change in official sidewalk width be approved
as in conformity with the Master Plan provided that the extension on the northwest
corner of Shotwell Street and Precita Avenue be modified to readily permit turning
movements .
After discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Porter, seconded by Commissioner
Ritchie, and carried unanimously that the Director be authorized to report that the
changes to the official sidewalk width, as shewn as Bureau of Engineering drawing
C-20-294, are in conformity with the Master Plan provided that the extension of the
northwest corner of Shotwell Street and Precita Avenue be modified to readily permit
turning movements.
'
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING -7- YARCH 14, 1974
EE73.231 - APPEAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
CITY PLANNING RELATIVE TO A PROPOSED 18-UNTT APARTMENT
BUILDING TO BE LOCATED AT 4050 - 17TH STREET.
President Newman called attention to a letter which had been received from
Dennis Natali, the applicant, requesting that consideration of this matter be p st-
poned until April 4, 1974. After discussion, the Commission decided to proceed with
the hearing as scheduled because several residents of the neighborhood were present:
and, at the conclusion of the hearing, the Commission decided io proceed to act on
the appeal.
Wilbert Hardee, Planner II, provided the Commission with background informatio
on this matter and explained the reasons for the staff's decision to issue a
negative declaration for the project.
The Commission then proceeded to hear from members of the audience including
Penn Butler, 4761 18th Street; Judith Hoyetn. 4040 17th Street; Elise Mannel, 4048
17th Street; Sue Hestor, President of the Eureka Valley Promotion Association; and
Andrew Hoyem, 4040 17th Street.
After discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Ritchie, seconded by Commis-
sioner Farrell, and carried unanimously that Resolution No. 7163 be adopted to
overrule the staff's negative declaration and to require that an Environmental
Impact Report be prepared for the proposed project.
A standard tape cassette recording of the proceedings is available in the
files of the Department of City Planning for public listening or transcription.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynn E. Pio
Secretary
DOCUMENTS
3/
v:f:r
APR 1 7 1974
---SAN FRANCISCO
^-CITY PLANNING COMMISSION §wJ5 luSSEy
Minutes of the Regular Meeting held Thursday, March 21, 1974.
The City Planning Commission met pursuant to notice on Thursday, March
21, 1974, at 100 Larkin Street at 1:45 p.m.
PRESENT: Walter S. Newman, President; Mrs. Charles B. Porter, Vice-
President; John C. Farrell, Thomas J. Mellon, John Ritchie,
and Hector E. Rueda, members of the City Planning Commission.
ABSENT: Mortimer Fleishhacker, member of the City Planning Commission.
The staff of the Department of City Planning was represented by Allan
B. Jacobs, Director of Planning; R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director -
Implementation (Zoning Administrator); Selina Bendix, Environmental Review
Officer; Richard Gamble, Planner IV; Edward Michael, Planner III; Alec Bash,
Planner III; and Lynn E. Pio, Secretary.
Keith Power represented the San Francisco Chronicle; Carol Kroot repre-
sented the San Francisco Progress and Sanna Craig represented the San Francisco
Bay Guardian.
1:45 P.M. - Field Trip
Members of the Commission and staff departed from 100 Larkin Street at
1:45 p.m. to take a field trip to property at 24th and Diamond Streets which
was to be the subject of the 3:00 p.m. calendar items.
2:15 P.M. - 100 Larkin Street
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved by Commissioner Porter, seconded by Commissioner Rueda, and
carried unanimously that the minutes of the meeting February 28, 1974, be ap-
proved as submitted.
CURRENT MATTERS
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, advised the Commission that the
Health and Environment Committee of the Board of Supervisors will review the
Environmental Impact Report for the proposed St. Mary's Hospital Expansion
project on Friday, March 22, at 2:00 p.m.
The Director reminded the Plan Implementation Committee (Commissioners
Fleishhacker, Rueda, Porter) of a meeting scheduled next Friday, March 29,
at 12:00 noon.
■
-
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 2 - MARCH 21, 1974
The Director reported on the effect which the Board of Supervisors'
recent decision on salary raises will have on the professional staff of the
Department of City Planning; and he indicated that he intended to write a
letter to the individual members of the Board to advise them of some of the
implications of their actions.
R74.5 - ALIGNMENT AND ACQUISITION - FRANCONIA STREET
Richard Gamble, Planner IV, reported on this matter as follows:
"The Director of Property has referred for Master Plan con-
formity the proposal to purchase portions of two vacant proper-
ties for the alignment of Franconia and Brewster Streets on the
east slope of Bernal Hill. Mullen - Brewster - Franconia is a
composite of three different streets linked together such that
they traverse the hillside above Bayshore freeway on a compara-
tively level route. At Esmeralda Avenue the road switches from
the Brewster to the Franconia alignment crossing private property.
North and west of this point Franconia and Esmeralda are devel-
oped as a continuous curving street; they are roughly 50 feet
higher than the Brewster - Franconia roadbed.
"The development of this street is one of the projects
indicated in the Neighborhood Improvement Program for Bernal
Heights which the Planning Commission approved in 1968.
Franconia has been recently paved south of this point to
Powhattan Street, and acquisition of this segment would per-
mit continuation of the project northward. The Plan for Resi-
dence indicates this is as residential area and construction of
this street would permit development of housing.
"The two parcels which are affected by the alignment are
in a single ownership. They were subdivided by a former owner
in 1962 without regard for the future street alignment. Build-
ing permits were applied for in 1963 and 64 but nothing was ever
built. The present owners are not contactable by telephone, and
the real estate department has not initiated negotiations with
them, thus we have no knowledge of their plans for the property.
It would seem very desirable to replat these parcels in order
to make lot 22 more usable. The lot area resulting as platted
is approximately 2300 square feet; however, only 1700 is re-
quired for corner lots."
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, recommended that the proposed
acquisition of property and re-alignment of the street be approved as in
conformity with the Master Plan.
No one in the audience wished to be heard on this matter.
i
:
'■■.•■■''
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 3 - MARCH 21, 1974
After discussion it was moved by Commissioner Porter, seconded by Com-
missioner Mellon, and carried unanimously that the Director be authorized to
report that the re-alingnment of Franconia Street and acquisition of portions
of Lots 21 and 22, Block 5635, as shown on Bureau of Engineering map S-352,
is in conformity with the Master Plan.
R74.6 - SALE OF SURPLUS LAND AT ELLIS STREET AND 5TH STREET NORTH.
Richard Gamble, Planner IV, reported on this matter as follows:
"The parcel in question was acquired for the extension of 5th
Street north to O'Farrell. It is a long tapering rectangle running
along the west side of 5th Street north of Ellis. At Ellis, it has
a width of 35 feet which tapers down to 13% feet at about its mid-
length, then retains that width to its northern extremity 177.5
feet from Ellis Street.
"The dimensions of the parcel are such as to make it unsuit-
able for development unless it is combined with adjoining property.
The abutting properties are in two ownerships, and it would appear
most desirable to divide this parcel and sell the pieces to the
abutting owners.
"The tapering portion near Ellis Street is of little archi-
tectural value, particularly for high rise construction, except
for whatever additional flbor are it will permit under FAR regu-
lations. Introduction of a building following the diagonal por-
tion of the alignment of the street would have an awkward ap-
pearance. This would conflict with Policy 1 for Major New Devel-
opment in the Urban Design Plan, which is to 'promote harmony in
the visual relationships and transitions between new and older
buildings. ' From an urban design standpoint, it would be most
desirable to establish a setback line and have a small tree-filled
plaza on this portion of the site."
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, recommended that the sale of the
subject property be approved as in conformity with the Master Plan providing
that it be divided and sold only to the abutting parcel owners and combined
therewith and that there be a building setback line established such that
only the westerly 13.50 feet of this parcel may be built upon above ground.
No one was present in the audience to be heard on this matter.
After discussion it was moved by Commissioner Porter, seconded by Com-
missioner Farrell, and carried unanimously that the Director be authorized
to report that sale of that portion of Lots 8 and 9, Block 326 west of 5th
Street North is in conformity with the Master Plan provided that it be
divided and sold only to the abutting parcel owners and combined therewith
and that there be a building setback line established such that only the
westerly 13.50 feet of this parcel may be built upon above ground.
'
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 4 - MARCH 21, 1974
CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSAL TO AWARD A CERTIFICATE OF MERIT FOR THE
MARY ELLEN PLEASANT TREES AT BUSH AND OCTAVIA STREETS.
Edward Michael, Planner III, stated that the Landmarks Preservation Advisory
Board had previously received a request that the trees be designated as a Landmark;
however, since the trees are not a building, they could not be given landmark status.
The Landmarks Preservation Advisory Eoard had then recommended that the trees be
awarded a Certificate of Merit; and the board's resolution, indicating the reasons
for its action, had been placed before each of the members of the City Planning
Commission. In conclusion, Mr. Michael stated that the award of a Certificate of
Merit would place no legal restraints on the owners of the property for preserva-
tion of the trees.
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, recommended that a Certificate of Merit
be awarded for the trees and distributed a draft resolution of approval which he had
prepared for consideration by the Commission.
Ethel Nance, representing the San Francisco African-American Historical Society,
remarked that the draft resolution called for presentation of the Certificate of
Merit to the owner of the property on which the trees are located; and she suggested
that it might be more appropriate to present the Certificate of Merit to her sociefy.
The Director agreed and indicated that he would be willing to change the draft
resolution.
After further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Mellon, seconded by
Commissioner Porter, and carried unanimously that the draft resolution, as revised,
be adopted as City Planning Commission Resolution No. 7164.
At 2:45 p.m. President Newman announced a 15 minute recess. The Commission
reconvened at 3:00 p.m. and proceeded with hearing of the remainder of the agenda.
President Newman was absent for the remainder of the meeting; and Vice-President
Porter assumed the chair.
EE74.8 - APPEAL OF A DETERMINATION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING
THAT AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE
PROJECT CONTEMPLATED IN CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION 74.3
INVOLVING A SELF-SERVICE CAR AND BOAT WASH IN A C-2 DISTRICT
AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF DIAMOND AND 24TH STREETS.
Commissioner Farrell stated that he intended to abstain from participating in
the discussion or voting on this matter since he belongs to a parlor of the Native
Sons of the Golden West which owns the subject property.
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director - Implementation (Zoning Administrator) 7
presented and summarized the case report on this matter. The case report is avail-
able in the files of the Department of City Planning.
'
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 5 - MARCH 21, 1974
The following members of the audience addressed the Commission on this matter:
Fred Methner, Chairman of the East and West of Castro Street Improvement Club;
Claire Pilcher, Chairman of the Friends of Noe Valley; Al Lanier, Chairman of the
Planning Committee of the Friends of Noe Valley; Mrs. Florence Meyer, 4185 - 24th
Street; Steve Holl, 4214 - 24th Street; and Ross Shendel, the applicant and appellant
During the course of the proceedings, the Commission asked the Director what
recommendation he intended to give regarding the Conditional Use Application. The
Director replied that he intended to recommend that the Conditional Use Application
be disapproved; and he proceeded to give the reasons for that recommendation.
After discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Rueda, seconded by Commissioner
Ritchie, and carried unanimously that Resolution No. 7165 be adopted, that the
determination of the Department of City Planning be overruled, and that the issuance
of a negative declaration be ordered. Commissioner Farrell abstained from voting.
A standard tape cassette recording of the proceedings is available in the
offices of the Department of City Planning for public listening or transcription.
CU74.3 - 4199 - 24TH STREET, SOUTHEAST CORNER OF DIAMOND STREET
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR A SELF-SERVICE CAR AND
BOAT WASH; IN A C-2 DISTRICT.
(POSTPONED FROM MEETING OF MARCH 7 , 1974)
During the public hearing on the appeal of the determination by the Department
of City Planning that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this
project, the Commission had requested the Director of Planning to indicate what his
recommendation would be on this conditional use application. The Director had
replied that he intended to recommend that the application be disapproved for the
following reasons :
1. The subject property is adjacent to and abutted by residentially zoned
and used property; and
2. The proposed use generates noisa and activity which would be detrimental
to the residential quality of the area; and
3. The traffic generated by the proposed use could interfere with bus and
vehicular traffic on 24th Street during peak activity periods at the automobile
wash; and
4. The applicant has not demonstrated any need or public necessity for the
use at this location which would override the negative effects generated; and
5. A substantial number of persons residing in the area and owning property
have expressed opposition to the proposed use, pointing out its negative effects on
the residential environment of the area.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 6 - MARCH 21, 1974
Ross Shendel, the applicant, stated that he felt that there is a need for the
proposed facility; and, since the facility was intended to serve people who already
live in the area, it would not attract additional traffic to the neighborhood.
Commissioner Ritchie remarked that residents of the subject neighborhood who
might wish to use such a facility could go to other areas where such facilities
already exist.
Commissioner Mellon inquired about the number of automobiles or boats which
would have to be washed each day to make the proposed project economically feasible.
Mr. Shendel replied that there are approximately 15,000 automobiles within a one-
mile radius of the subject site; and he believed that a sufficient number of those
automobiles would use the proposed facility to make the operation economically
feasible.
Commissioner Ritchie inquired about the rates which would be charged at the
facility. Mr. Shendel replied that customers would pay approximately fifty cents
to wash their vehicle and an additional twenty-five cents if they wished to use
the vacuum.
Commissioner Rueda asked how much time would be required to wash an automobile
at the facility. The Director replied that the length of the washing time would
depend on the number of quarters which the customer wished to spend.
Commissioner Ritchie inquired about the proposed hours of operation of the
facility. Mr. Shendel stated that he proposed to keep the facility open 24 hours
a day. In reply to further questions raised by Commissioner Ritchie, Mr. Shendel
stated that the number of vehicles using the facility each day might range from
100 to 500; however, he indicated that he would have no control over customer volume-
He also indicated that an attendant might be on duty at the facility on occasion.
The Director advised the Commission that most facilities of the sort being
proposed are not staffed.
Commissioner Ritchie remarked that the volume of business needed to make the
project economically feasible was still not clear to him. While he hoped that the
applicant would make a profit from his business wherever it is to be located, he
questioned whether the subject site would be an appropriate location for such a
use.
Commissioner Mellon expressed concern about the applicant's proposal to have
the facility open on a 24-hour basis. Mr. Shendel replied that people may not use
the facility at night even if it is open.
Fred Methner, Chairman of the East and West of Castro Street Improvement Club,
remarked that there are not many boats in the Noe Valley; and, therefore, any boats
using the facility would probably come from other neighborhoods.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 7 - MARCH 21, 1974
Claire Pilcher, Chairman of the Friends of Noe Valley, noted that the applicant
had remarked that there is a need for the proposed facility to serve residents of
the neighborhood; yet, although her organization has a paid membership of 300 people,
not one member of the organization had risen in favor of the proposed project.
Gary Odoffer, 119 Hoffman Avenue, felt that an Environmental Impact Report for
the proposed project should have been required by the Commission; and, if such a
report had been prepared, he believed that it would have shown that two major bus
lines focus on the subject neighborhood, which already has a severe traffic problem.
If the proposed facility were to be operated on a 24-hour basis, lighting of the
site would have an impact on the environment. Furthermore, there are a number of
service stations in the neighborhood which will wash automobiles for a modest fee;
and, as a result, he did not believe that the proposed facility is needed in the
area. He also remarked that where similar facilities exist in other parts of the
city, people wash not only their automobiles but also clean their engines, leaving
the area covered with grease, oil, and dirt. Automobiles often line up at those
facilities to wait their turn; and, after the automobiles have been washed, their
owners often park them on adjacent sidewalks or streets while they dry them. He
did not feel that that type of operation should be permitted in a residential area.
Florence Meyer, 4185 - 24th Street, stated that she lives next door to the
subject property. She advised the Commission that the property had not been well
maintained even when it was operated by the Standard Oil Company; and she doubted
that it would be well maintained if the proposed facility were to be approved.
Steve Holl, 4214 - 24th Street, stated that the subject property had been on
the market with an asking price of $85,000; yet, even though the commercial zoning
of the site would permit the property to be developed with 12 R-3 units and
commercial ground floor space, no one had felt that such development would be
economically feasible given the price of the land. Under the circumstances, he
expected that the applicant would have to draw a great many automobiles to the site
in order to provide sufficient revenue to make the proposed operation economically
feasible.
Mr. Shendel stated that he had not been present when the Director had given his
recommendation on this matter to the Commission. The Director repeated his recommen-
dation of disapproval and cited the reasons for his negative recommendation. He
believed that the proposed operation would constitute a nuisance in the neighborhood
whether it is a success or a failure; and, therefore, he recommended as strongly
as possible that the application be disapproved.
Commissioner Ritchie indicated that he agreed with the Director; and he moved
that the application be disapproved.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Rueda who remarked that there was no
question but what the proposed use would attract traffic from outside of the subject
neighborhood. In conclusion, he asked if similar facilities had been approved in
other residential areas of the city. The Director replied that self-service auto-
mobile washing facilities tend to be located in industrial areas.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 8 - MARCH 21, 1974
When the question was called, the Commission voted 4 to 0 to adopt Resolution
No. 7166 and to disapprove the subject application.
Commissioner Farrell abstained from voting on this matter.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynn E. Pio
Secretary
C££#/6
3}2im
SAN FRANCISCO
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of the Regular Meeting held Thursday, March 28, 1974.
The City Planning Commission met pursuant to notice on Thursday, March 28,
1974, at 1:00 p.m. at 100 Larkin Street.
PRESENT: Mrs. Charles B. Porter, Vice-President; John C. Farrell, Thomas J.
Mellon, John Ritchie, and Hector E. Rueda, members of the City Plan-
ning Commission.
ABSENT: Walter S. Newman, President; and Mortimer Fleishhacker, member of the
City Planning Commission.
The staff of the Department of City Planning was represented by Allan B.
Jacobs, Director of Planning; R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director-Implementation
(Zoning Administrator); Edward I. Murphy, Assistant Director of Planning; Robert
Passmore, Planner V (Zoning); Wayne Rieke, Planner IV (Zoning); William Duchek ,
Planner III; Marie Zeller, Planner III - Administrative; Alan Billingsley, Planner
II; Paul Rosetter, Planner II; Mark Winogrond, Planner II; Moira So, Planner II;
and Lynn E. Pio, Secretary.
Harry Jupiter, represented the San Francisco Chronicle; Dexter Waugh, represent-
ed the San Francisco Examiner; and Scott Windhur represented the San Francisco
Progress. Television Channel 7 was also represented.
1;00 p.m. Field Trip
Members of the Commission and staff departed from 100 Larkin Street at 1:00 p.m.
on a field trip to property to be considered during the zoning hearing to be held
on April 4 and to the Nob Hill properties affected by applications ZM 73.29 and
ZM 73.19 which were to be heard later in the afternoon.
2:15 p.m. 100 Larkin Street
CURRENT MATTERS
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, reminded the Implementation Committee
(Commissioners Fleishhacker, Porter, Rueda) of a meeting scheduled for Friday,
March 29, at 12:00 noon.
The Director advised the Commission that a sub-committee of the Budget and
Efficiency Committee of the Board of Supervisors would review the Department of City
Planning' s budget for the next fiscal year that evening.
The Director informed the Commission that the Board of Supervisors had returned
the proposed ordinance amending the City Planning Code to permit foster homes and
family care homes as a principal use in R-l-D zoning districts and had requested that
the ordinance be redrafted to include a requirement for conditional use permits to
maintain such homes in residential districts.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -2- MARCH 28, 1974
Edward L. Murphy, Assistant Director of Planning, submitted and summarized a
memorandum outlining what would be involved in the preparation of a general sub-
division ordinance for San Francisco. The memorandum is available in the files of
the Department of City Planning. During the course of the presentation Commissioner
Rueda arrived in the meeting room and assumed his seat at the Commission table.
After discussion, the Commission took this matter under advisement for two weeks
for further consideration at that time.
Mark Winogrond, Planner II, submitted and summarized the fourth background
paper for the Community Safety Element of the Comprehensive Plan entitled "Emergency
Operation Center". The report is available in the files of the Department of City
Planning.
The Director noted that the first background report of the Community Safety
Element of the Comprehensive Plan had documented the need for additional strong-
motion instrumentation installations in the city; and, as a step towards encouraging
the installation of such instruments in certain new developments in the future, he
had prepared a draft resolution for consideration by the Commission which contained
the following resolves:
"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission states its intention
to consider requiring strong-motion instrumentation in any major building project,
or project occupying one or more city blocks, requiring a conditional use approval;
and
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission's consideration
of such a requirement will be subject to USGS or California Division of Mines and
Geology Criteria for location and recommendation for instrumentation; and to such
policies regarding instrumentation as may be included in the Community Safety
Element of the Comprehensive Plan for San Francisco, when adopted."
Commissioner Farrell inquired about the possible cost of installing strong-
motion instrumentation. William Duchek, Planner III, replied that the cost of
installation of the instrumentation could range from $1,500 to $15,000.00.
Commissioner Porter asked if the owners of buildings in which the instruments
are to be installed would be responsible for maintenance of the instruments. Mr.
Duchek replied in the negative, indicating that the instruments would be maintained
by the State or by the USGS.
Commissioner Rueda remarked that the instruments would provide the City with
information which is not available at the present time; and he felt that steps
should have been taken years ago to encourage the installation of such instruments
throughout the city.
After further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Rueda, seconded by Com-
missioner Ritchie, and carried unanimously that the draft resolution be adopted
as City Planning Commission Resolution No. 7167.
MINUTES OF TEE REGULAR MEETING -3- MARCH 28, 1974
The Secretary called attention to a letter which had been received from Mark
S. Litwin, Attorney for Mr. Denny Pelletier, owner of property at 160 Greenwich
Street, requesting the Commission to conduct a discretionary review of plans for
an apartment building proposed for property located at 939 Lombard Street.
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director-Implementation (Zoning Administrator),
stated that the plans for the building had been approved by the Department of City
Planning on November 12, 1973 and by the Bureau of Building Inspection on March 20,
1974. However, since the plans had not yet been picked up by the applicant when
the letter from Mr. Litwin was received, he had requested that they be held pending
a decision by the Commission on the discretionary review request. He then described
the plans for the proposed apartment building which would contain 1 one-bedroom
unit, 3 two-bedroom units, and 1 three-bedroom unit. He stated that the proposed
project had been the subject of an evironmental evaluation which had resulted in
the filing of a negative declaration by the staff of the Department of City Planning.
He stated that the proposed development would conform with the Interim Residential
Zoning Controls. In conclusion, he indicated that the proposed building would have
some effect on the property to the west.
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, recommended that the request for dis-
cretionary review of the plans be denied.
No one was present in the audience to address the Commission on this matter.
After discussion it was moved by Commissioner Rueda, seconded by Commissioner
Ritchie, and carried unanimously that the request for a discretionary review of
plans for the apartment building to be located at 939 Lombard Street be denied.
At 3:00 p.m. Vice-President Porter announced that the meeting was recessed.
Members of the Commission then proceeded to Room 282, City Hall, and reconvened at
3:10 p.m. for hearing of the remainder of the agenda.
3:10 p.m. - Room 282, City Hall
NOB HILL RECLASSIFICATIONS ABE A BOUNDED GENERALLY BY PACIFIC AVENUE,
MASON STREET, PROPERTIES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CALIFORNIA STREET, AND
PROPERTIES BETWEEN LARKIN AND POLK STREETS:
ZM73.29 - RECLASSIFICATION TO R-4 (HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL)
OF PROPERTIES WITHIN THE AREAS PRESENTLY ZONED R-5, AND
RECLASSIFICATION TO R-3.5 (HIGH -MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE
RESIDENTIAL) OF PROPERTIES WITKEw THE AREA PRESENTLY
ZONED R-4.
Z 173.19 - RECLASSIFICATION TO A 65 -X HEIGHT AND BULK DISTRICT OF
PROPERTIES WITHIN THE AREA PRESENTLY CLASSIFIED AS 240-D
and -320-E HEIGHT AND BULK DISTRICTS, AND CLASSIFICATION TO A
40 -X HEIGHT AND BULK DISTRICT OF PROPERTIES WITHIN THE AREA
PRESENTLY CLASSIFIED AS 80-A, 105-A, 130-D, 130-E, 160-D,
160-F, 200-E HEIGHT AND BULK DISTRICTS.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -4- MARCH 28, 1974
Robert Passmore, Planner V (Zoning) referred to land use and zoning maps to
describe the subject properties, remarking that the area under consideration com-
prised all or portions of 33 city blocks. He continued his report, as follows:
"The subject area has its highest elevation along Jones Street be-
tween Washington and Clay and slopes down in all directions from that
point. Existing uses are primarily residential, but are very diverse
in scale, ranging from low-rise single-family dwellings to high-rise,
high density apartment houses. A number of apartment houses in the area
are being converted to condominiums.
"Based on data from the 1970 census the subject area contains approx-
imately 6,240 dwelling units occupied by approximately 13,000 persons.
Generally, in the central and southeastern portions of the subject area
residents include more elderly persons than the city-wide average. In
the northern and we seem portions the age mix of residents approximates
the city-wide average of approximately 247o under 18 years of age, and
approximately 147» over 62 years of age.
"Also based on 1970 census data, the average rental of rental units
in the subject blocks ranged when that survey was done from $101 to
$350 per month on a block by block analysis.
"Grace Cathedral and the Pacific Union Club are significant land-
marks in the subject area. The Fairmont Hotel, Mark Hopkins Hotel, and
Stanford Court Hotel abut the subject area. The area contains a number
of relatively small non-conforming commercial and industrial uses. Hunt-
ington Square is the principle recreation open space in the subject area.
"The ten buildings 10 floors or higher in height within the subject
area include 172-foot high Comstock Apartments on Jones Street between
Clay and Washington, the 135-foot high Crest Royal Apartments on the
northest corner of Clay and Jones, the 120-foot high 1360 Jones Apar -
ments on the southeast corner of Washington and Jones, the 231-foot
high Clay-Jones Apartments on the southest corner of Clay and Jones, the
126-foot high Nevjcomb Apartments on the northeast corner of Sacramento
and Taylor, the 200-foot high Nob Hill Apartments on the northwest
corner of Sacramento and Sproule Lane, the 136-foot high Park Lane Apart-
ments on the northwest corner of Sacramento and Mason, the 160-foot high
Huntington Hotel on the southeast corner of California and Taylor, the
178-foot high Cathedral Apartments on the soutlwest corner of California
and Jones, the 272-foot high 1200 California Street Apartments on the
northwest corner of California and Jones and the 197-foot high 1221 Jones
Street Apartments on Jones between Sacramento and Clay. The Grosvenor
Tower Apartments on the southeast corner of Jones and California cur-
rently under construction will be 160 feet high.
"The east-west streets through Nob Hill are 49.1 feet wide (narrowing
from 68.75 feet west of Larkin Street. T..e north-south streets are 68.67
feet wide .
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -5- MARCH 28, 1974
"The Planning Code provides for height limit districts covering the
entire city. The numerical figure for each district indicates the max-
imum permitted building height in feet, and the accompanying letter
designation indicates the maximum horizontal building dimension permitted
over a certain building height. Districts with an 'A' designation re-
strict the horizontal dimensions of building segments over 40 feet high
to a maximum of 110 feet long and a diagonal dimension of 125 feet, a
'D' , 'E' , or 'F' designation restricts tne horizontal dimensions of
building segments over 40, 65, and 80 feet respectively to a maximum
of 110 feet long and a diagonal dimension of 140 feet. An 'X' designa-
tion indicates no horizontal dimension limitations.
"The number of dwelling units permitted in an R-5 district is based
on a ratio of one unit for each 125 square feet of lot area (an efficiency
unit is counted as .75 of a dwelling unit). One unit for each 200 square
feet of lot area is permitted in the R-4 district and one unit for each
600 Bquare feet of lot area is permitted in the R-3.5 district. A typi-
cal Nob Hill block, 113,437 square feet in area, would thus be permitted
a maximum of 890 full size units to 1100 efficiency units if zoned R-5,
567 units if zoned R-4, and 189 units if zoned R-3.5. Based on 197C
census data blocks in the Nob Hill subject area generally contain between
100 and 330 dwelling units. Subject to applicable building height and
bulk district limitations, R-5 zoning permits a maximum basic gross floor
area that is 10 times the lot area, and R-4 zoning permits a maximum
gross floor area 4.8 times the lot area. The R-3.5 district provisions
do not limit gross floor area for residential buildings, but do impose
a mandatory 40-foot height and three floors of residential occupancy
limitation.
"The R-4 and R-5 districts permit conditional use consideration of
professional office buildings. Hotels may be considered as a conditional
use in R-3.5, R-4, and R-5 districts.
"Legally constructed residential buildings which become non-con-
forming due to a change in zoning classification have no mandatory term-
ination date .under the provisions of the Planning Code, and, under Sec-
tion 155 of the Code, may be restored and the former lawful use resumed
if damaged or destroyed by fire, or other calamity, or by Act of God;
provided that such restoration is permitted by the Building Code and is
started within one year and diligently prosecuted to completion.
"The Residential Element of the Master Plan designates the Nob Hill
subject area as High Density (10 to 20 unit apartments - 3 to 8 stories)
and Highest Density (over 20 unit apartments - over 8 stories). Urban
design guidelines for height contained in the Master Plan recommend that
building heights on the crest of Nob Hill should be determined by floor
area ratio."
Harline Hurst, 77 Pleasant Street, read and submitted the following prepared
statement :
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -6- MARCH 28, 1974
"I have lived on Nob Hill for 10 years. I am representing Nob
Hill Neighbors.
"Nob Hill Neighbors is an association founded last year when Nob
Hill residents were interested in the Urban Design Plan review and
hearings.
"Residents were attracted to the exciting new potential of urban
design. But, at this same time an old fashioned building controversy
occupied them. Hill neighbors rallied to fight a building proposed to
overwhelm a small open site with a huge highrise at 1330 Clay.
"Nob Hill Neighbors grew from chis first organization. We realized
the thousands and thousands and unousands of dollars and the endless
hours spent from hearing rooms through courtrooms just to block one
bad building this would be a tiny effort compared to the need for a
constructive solution for continuing long range problems. So, today
Nob Hill Neighbors has over 200 members, a wide list of supporters, and
contributors, and friends, many of whom are here today in support of
our two 1973 applications to rezone Nob Hill.
"Our members live all over the hill- -in high buildings on the hill
spine, and in the low and medium rise buildings around the tiny Square
and flanking the hill slopes.
"The applications before you are related. One deals with heights
and the other with density. These applications reflect our desire for
a zoning plan sensitive to the special problems of this very special
spot which is Nob Hill.
"There are a lot of special reasons to consider Nob Hill a special
spot. (SUBMIT A SET OF PHOTO SPREADS)
(OUTSIDE) This picture of the east flank of Nob Hill gives a hint of
our problems. The crest shows the buildings east of Mason and the
buildings on the crest will not be affected by this application.
(INSIDE) The charm and diversity of our buildings is only touched by
the small sample inside set of photographs from the book Here Today.
:'0ur proposed solutions the Nob Hill plan will help Nob Hill
benefit from your own Urban Design Plan criteria. Our plans will pro-
tect our hill while your own residential zoning study is in progress.
"A word about that study. Nob Hill Neighbors has worked closely
with the other city neighborhoods to obtain the interim residential
zoning controls that protect neighborhoods during the study. That is...
they protect all the other residential neighborhoods. . .but not us. Our
heights are higher, so these important controls won't apply. Yet, we
deserve this short range protection too. . .tailored to our special needs
...that other neighborhoods now have. We do want to cooperate with the
Planning Department in the Residential Zoning study. We know long range
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -7- MARCH 23, 1974
protection and the best long range plan for the hill will come from
this kind of working together.
"So today, we ask you to grant our rezoning applications. The Nob
Hill plan is in accord with this City's urban design criteria which
shapes the buildings to the hill, and not the other way around. The Nob
Hill Plan makes good economic sense for residents and owners whose huge
investments are in jeopardy without protective controls. The Neb Hill
Plan will make good the Planning Commission's own promise: that neighbor-
hoods' special needs WILL be considered .. .that zoning will be shaped by
residents working with planners. . .that zoning will no longer allow ruin
of San Francisco's special spots.
"It is important to recongnize that old zones do not really reflect
today's values or serve special spots. Charles McCabe made this point
very well in a recent Chronicle column 'There is a growing awareness...
a larger. . .interest. . .This public interest is becoming. slowly but. surely
realized.' Rezoning jLs_ the expressed public interest on Nob Hill.
"My own street. . .Pleasant Street remains just so. But I see all
around me becoming less and less pleasant. A Kvable street is described
in the Urban Design Study Report... and it co Id be Pleasant Street...
BEFORE. It's safe. Noise, vibration, fumes, poor lighting. . .are not
excessive. It's clean. It's interesting and different. There is a feel
of community. . .of cohesiveness .. .despite our urbanity. But your own study
shows how heavy and moderate traffic affect a neighborhood and spoil these
qualities that make Pleasant Street a model. All Nob Hill streets are
not so lucky... and maybe Pleasant Street won't be for long. More high-
rises would mean more congestion. . .more traffic... a far far less pleasant
Nob Hill.
"Our plan is easy to understand and to ena~-. All residents and
owners on Nob Hill agree... KEEP THE SUNSHINE ON NOB HILL. Heights should
be kept to 40' on the slopes^and 65' on.the spines of the hill. That line
goes here: (DRAW LINE)
(POINT O'.T 40' here and 65' there) This will keep the sunshine on San
Francisco's most famous hill. We all want that.
"We all know that high-rise construction is incredibly disruptive.
A huge building can take 2-3 years to construct. Neighbors live with
construction equipment, trucks, jackhammers and pile drivers, noisy steel
construction methods .. .and this goes on for a LONG TIME. Tenants move
out. Vacancies rise, but expenses continue to go up and up. Buildings
lose value when they face a high-rise. . .or even its garage. Our plan
won't stop desireable, well-planned development. But it will stabilize
and protect. New opportunity and incentives will be set into effect for
architects, builders and labor.
"Another quality of Nob Hill we all want to keep is the feeling we
all have: we all like it a little crowded. Our density should be limited
to R-4 and R-3. That line goes here: (DRAW LINE) (POINT: This = R-3/
that R-4) It will keep Nob Hill active... and a little crowded. We who
live here know that's the attraction of our famous hill.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -3- MARCH 28, 1974
"San Franciscans all know Nob Hill is special. In fact, San Fran-
cisco is unique in the country because all San Francisco districts have
real identity. A neighborhood like ours needs to fee1, that residents
have that chance that lets them help plan for their own areas. We urge
your support for our application. .. the Nob Hill Plan... and look forward
to helping you help us to find the best possible plan for Nob Hill."
Stanley Herzstein, 1170 Sacramento Street, noted that two members of the Com-
mission were absent; and he indicated that he would prefer to have final action on
the subject applications deferred until such time as all members of the Commission
could be present. He stated that he lives in a penthouse apartment; and he indi-
cated that he was anxious to preserve his beautiful view and the peace and quiet
which he presently enjoys. Therefore, he had supported the applications which
were presently before the Commission for consideration. He stated that he, person-
ally, did not know whether the specific proposals being made would, in all cases,
be right for the areas involved; however, the applicants felt that the proposals
were appropriate. He believed that the Commission, in its wisdom, could arrive at
a compromise which would lower both height limits and permitted densities in the
neighborhood. He pointed out that Nob Hill, unlike Telegraph Hill, Russian Hill,
and other residential neighborhoods of the city, is not protected by the Interim
Residential Zoning Controls since those controls apply only to neighborhoods which
have a height limit of 65 feet or less; and, in that regard, he felt that his neigh-
borhood had been discriminated against. He urged the Commission to consider that
most of the people present in the meeting room were residents of Nob Hill and were
in favor of the proposed re-zoning; and he asked the Commission to take action to
keep Nob Hill as it is and should be.
C.S. Holden, 1371 Jackson Street, remarked that the cable cars which traverse
Nob Hill are the city's number one tourist attraction; and he felt that the type
of development permitted by the existing zoning of the neighborhood would create
traffic problems which would interfere with the movement of the cable cars and would
make the neighborhood less attractive to tourists traveling on the cable cars.
Therefore, he favored the proposed "down-zoning" as a means of protecting one of
San Francisco's greatest resources, the cable cars.
John Rosenberg, 1357 Clay Street, remarked that the Commission, during a pub-
lic hearing on a proposed high-rise building last year, had questioned residents
of Nob Hill who were opposed to the building as to why they had not taken earlier
action to change the zoning of the property; and he pointed out that such action
was now being taken at a time when no new buildings are pending before the Commis-
sion. He noted that a great deal of time had been spent by residents of the neigh-
borhood fighting that building before the City Planning Commission, the Board of
Permit Appeals and the Courts; and he did not feel that it would be a good procedure
to take individual buildings on a case b} case basis in the future because of the
amount of time which such procedures involve. Under the circumstances, he felt that
it would be preferable for the Commission to approve the two applications presently
under consideration. In conclusion, he emphasized that Nob Hill is not subject to
the Interim Residential Zoning Controls because of its present height limits; and
he remarked that one of the favorable aspects of positive action on application
ZM73.19 would be to bring properties on Nob Hill under those controls.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -9- MARCH 28, 1974
Sol Silverman, 1200 California Street, felt that the statement which had been
made by Mrs. Hurst was eloquently persuasive; and he hoped that favorable action
would be taken on the applications by the Commission. He remarked, however, that
no decisive answer had been given as to whether the Commission would take action
on the applications during the course of the present hearing; and he indicated that
it was his opinion that due process would not be served if action were to be taken
when two members of the Commission were absent.
Commissioner Ritchie pointed out that a quorum of the Commission was present;
and, as a result, the Commission would be in a position to act on the applications
if it so desired.
Ronald H. Kahn, Attorney for the Corns tock Apartment Corporation, read and
submitted the following prepared statement.
"The Comstock Board of Directors desire a moment of reflection by
the members of this Planning Commission. The existing height and bulk
controls are of no value whatsoever.
"This Commission will recall the monument to poor planning that
was presented to this Commission for the property immediately adjacent
to the Comstock in January of last year. The chief argument of the
developers was that the building as proposed, conformed to all facets
of the height and bulk requirements which are put forth as the so-called
present controls. But for the wisdom of this Commission in denying the
developers application for a building permit at that stage of the proceed-
ings, the likelihood of yet another Tower of Shadow would have been
imminent--this time with a proximity of some 40 feet from the west wall
of the Comstock--shutting out light and air. The effect on the density
of such a building upon the pursuit of living among all residents in
the area was a prime factor in this Board's determination to not permit
that project to be built.
"Members of this Board suggested on January 4, 1973 that a rezoning
study be performed. The Comstock Board is in full agreement. During
this study, there must be realistic controls otherwise more monuments
to poor planning will be constructed."
Ian Campbell, 1333 Jones Street, remarked that lots of planning mistakes have
been made in this country. In some communities, mistakes have been made which have
led to "urban-sprawl." In San Francisco the major mistake which has been made has
been to believe that the most economic thing to do is to build more and more high-
rise buildings to house more and more people. Yet, the higher a building goes, the
more it costs. Furthermore, we have recently been made aware that the earth's
resources are finite; and it is questionable whether energy will be available to
service high-rise buildings in the future.
Phillip Tucker, 1449 Washington Street, stated that he had moved to San Fran-
cisco from Memphis in 1972; and he remarked that the only thing that Memphis seems
to have in common with San Francisco is high-rise buildings.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -10- MARCH 28, 1974
Jim Flack, 1360 Clay Street, expected that individuals speaking in opposition
to the proposed reclassification would argue that the "down-zoning" would decrease
land values. He stated that his own feeling was that zoning creates value; and
what is given can also be taken away. He emphasized that the Commission and the
legislative body of the city have the power to create zoning; and he felt that
the citizens of the community should have a voice in determining what zoning is
appropriate.
C. Edward Head, 12 Leroy Place, read and submitted the following statement:
."My name is C. Edward Head and I am President of the Nob Hill Association.
"Before I comment specifically on the proposed applications before you
today, I would like to make several brief remarks about Nob Hill in
general.
"We do not consider Nob Hill to be a neighborhood in the sense that
one usually defines a neighborhood but rather a highly complex, highly
urbanized residential-commercial area of the city that has, over the
years, supported many lifestyles and ethnic mixtures of residents--from
the very affluent to those who could possible be classified at below the
poverty level.
"On the other hand, the area comprises a varied commercial mixture
which runs from the great Cathedral to a pornographic movie house--from
the grandest hotels to the lowest priced residence clubs--from the Pacif-
ic Union Club and Masonic Temple to a corner laundromat--from the finest
French Cuisine to a drug store lunch counter and everything in between
that one could imagine.
"Because of its history in this city, San Franciscans have always
felt it to be something special and unique. Because of its world-wide
fame, our visitors to this city expect the Hill to be different, some-
how, from what they left behind at home.
"In considering the applications before you, we feel that we connot
look at one person's view--or one building--or one block--or one street--
or even just the area we know as Nob Hill. Because of the historical
and economic importance of the Hill to all of San Francisco, we must
judge these applications as to the over-all impact on the city itself.
"The goals of the Nob Hill Neighbors which you have heard today are
those that the Nob Hill Association supports whole-heartedly. Among others,
we too are opposed to pollution, congestion, noise, crime, health prob-
lems, traffic problems and fire hazards. We cannot accept the assumption,
however, that tall buildings must contribute to these social ills.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -11- MARCH 28, 1974
San Francisco has an Urban Design Plan which was years in
making, cost many hundreds of thousands of dollars and was adopted only
after many years of neighborhood meetings with the planning staff. This
Plan was voted into law in 1972.
"It is considered by many cities, both here and abroad, to be the
most enlightened and reasonable approach to urban planning ever put to-
gether. The residents of this city should be proud, and the Planning
Commission and Planning Staff should be complimented for such an accomp-
lishment. The Nob Hill Association is proud to have been able to work
with the Planning Staff on this plan and hope that we made a meaningful
contribution.
"You are now asked, however, to discard this new Urban Design Plan
before it even has had a chance to work.
"The Nob Hill Association is opposed to the applications before you
today and request there be no changes in the present law at this time.
We are conf'.d nt that the present zoning and height limits should serve
the Hill wel and that we give the Urban Design Plan a fair chance be-
fore we discard it.
"Added control and protection is offered with the advent of the
Environmental Impact Studies now required.
"As an additional control on Nob Hill, however, we would suggest
an expansion of the Special Use District which is now in effect in the
area bounded by California, Taylor, Sacramento and Mason Streets. This
would give every resident on Nob Hill an opportunity to support or pro-
test any proposed high-rises within the Special Use District.
"We are aware of the general deterioration on Nob Hill and plan to
do whatever we can to reverse this trend. We do not believe that the
proposed applications before you today will solve our problems. In fact,
we believe that a height and density restriction such as that proposed
might destroy the incentive to replace or improve older, substandard
properties, thereby contributing to further deterioration on the Hill."
Vincent Friia, owner of property at 1200 Sacramento Street, stated that it
was his opinion that the existing zoning on Nob Hill represented a satisfactory
compromise .
Arnold Browning, 1055 Mason Street, read the following letter which he had
previously submitted:
"I am writing in disfavor of nullifying present interim zoning con-
trols. I believe that these controls were carefully devised after ex-
haustive studies and then approved by The Board of Supervisors of The
City of San Francisco. I was glad to read in The San Francisco Chronicle,
dated March 26, 1974 that you, Mr. Jacobs, said, 'The request will be
»iven only a 'perfunctory' review now that the city has passed interim
zoning controls, which place new limits on the size of apartment houses.'
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -12- MARCH 28, 1974
"The San Francisco newspaper also stated that the Nob Hill Neighbors
group proclaimed, 'Keep the sunshine on San Francisco's famous hill.1
This is a catchy phrase, but let us not be caught by it. I am told by
responsible persons that leadership in this new group is composed of
occupants of Nob Hill's highest towers and its broadest block-buster
type apartment houses. These buildings cut out light and sunshine for
many modestly priced apartments. The great shadows are already with us.
New construction could hurt the views of the present high rise buildings.
This, I sincerely believe is the only concern of the leadership of the
dissent group.
"May I suggest to the owners and occupants of these buildings that
if they are so anxious to preserve their views, they should proceed to
purchase air rights on strategic locations, as is the practice in other
communities .
"No doubt the Nob Hill Neighbors group is partially composed of
short term renters with no long term interest in San Francisco. The
property that I represent has been in our family since 1905.
"The San Francisco newspaper also expressed the fear of some in-
dividuals that Nob Hill is going to look like New York City. This could
be understood in a complimentary or derogatory way. New York has the
very rich and the poor; San Francisco has also the middle class citizens.
The top of our famous hill attracts the rich and the slopes can continue
to attract the middle class. With new construction, more of the middle
class can be lured to the city and locate where the proximity to dow. -
town and the wonderful views are so desireable. Let us not be short
sighted and limit growth of our truly great city.
"Let us have orderly development as has been provided and approved
by our city fathers and let us not allow short term interest or selfish-
ness to interfere with our goals."
Robert E. Patmont introduced himself as an attorney representing the American
Hawaiian Steamship Company, owner of ground lot leases for 25,080 square feet of
property located on the northeast corner of Sacramento Street and Sproule Lane.
He advised the Commission that he also represented the Olin Corporation which is
working directly with the American Hawaiian Steamship Company to develop a condo-
minium apartment building on the property located at Sacramento Street and Sproule
Lane. He remarked that the property with which he was concerned is well known to
members of the City Planning Commission, having been the subject of hearings before
the Commission on several occasions. Since the applications presently under con-
sideration were being sponsored and supported by individuals who had previously
opposed projects proposed for the Sacramento Street-Sproule Lane property, it seemed
clear to him that the application was directed against that property for the purpose
of preserving views presently enjoyed by those individuals. The situation reminded
him of the definition of a "conservationist" as one who completed his cabin in the
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -13- MARCH 28, 1974
forest yesterday while a "developer" is one who wants to start building his cabin
today. He stated that his clients had already determined that the type of develop-
ment which would be permitted by the proposed zoning would not be economically
feasible on their site; and, since they had relied on the zoning then in effect when
they purchased the ground lease, he felt that they should be allowed to proceed
with an economically useful development under that zoning. He stated that the con-
dominium apartment building which his clients proposed to construct would conform
to R-4 density standards; however, in order to be economically feasible, the building
would need to utilize the floor area ratio permitted by the R-5 zoning district.
He remarked that the Sacramento Street-Sproule Lane site is a unique R-5 property
insofar as it is located across the street from open-space and is not "boxed-in";
and the property is also unique insofar as it has traffic access from five streets.
The property is located on the fringe of the area under consideration; and he did
not feel that development of the property to R-5 standards would have a significant
effect on the rest of the area. He also remarked that his clients will have to
prepare an Environmental Impact Report for their project.
commissioner Ritchie asked Mr. Patmont to be more specific about the effect
which reclassification of his clients' property from R-5 to R-4 would have on the
building being contemplated. Mr. Patmont replied that the reduction in floor area
ratio which would accompany re-zoning of the property from R-5 to R-4 would reduce
the amount of space in the proposed building from 220,000 square feet to approx-
imately 134,000 square feet.
Gerald McCue, representing the Wilson Estate Company, owner of property located
at 1401 Jones Street, stated that the most critical effect of the proposed re-zoning
of his clients' property from R-5 to R-4 would involve the reduction of the floor
area ratio permitted on the property. He believed that approval of the proposed
"down-zoning" would effectively stop new development in the subject neighborhood;
and he felt that the basic issue before the Commission was whether one area of the
city which is located near the central core can be developed to a higher density
than other residental neighborhoods.
Richard S. Jensen, Attorney for the 1260 California Street Corporation and
for Mr. and Mrs. Steven Stills, tenants of property located at 1244 California
Street, stated that he had had only 2% days to prepare for the Commission's hearing;,
and, while the notice given by the Department may have met legal requirements, he
felt that the notice was, in fact, inadequate. He indicated that both of the prop-
erties which he represented are developed with older buildings which may soon re-
quire substantial rehabilitation; and, since it appeared that rehabilitation would
not be economically feasible under the proposed zoning, he felt that approval of the
requested re-zoning might eventually lead to abandonment of the buildings.
Albert Monaco, Attorney for the owners of properties on the east side of Sproule
Lane north of Sacramento Street, which persons formerly owned property on the west
side of Sproule Lane also, spoke in opposition to the applications. He remarked
that all of the other parcels of property at the crest of Nob Hill are already
developed with the exception of the property located on the northeast corner of
Sacramento Street and Sproule Lane; and he felt that one of the purposes of the
proposed "down-zoning" was to block high-rise development of that property. He
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -14- MARCH 28, 1974
noted that the proposal was being supported by Mr. Herzstein, who resides at 1170
Sacramento Street; and it seemed to him that Mr. Herzstein was indirectly trying
to protect his own view. He also advised the Commission that 47 of the 72 occupants
of 1170 Sacramento Street have purchased their apartments since the time that his
clients' 99 year lease to the firm represented by Mr. Patmont was made a matter
of record; and, therefore, they obviously knew that a high-rise development was
being planned for that site at the time that their purchases were made. Under
the circumstances, he did not believe that equity would be served by the proposed
"down-zoning". Supporters of the application also seemed to be arguing that the
proposed "down-zoning" was needed to alleviate traffic problems on Clay. Street;
however, having made a survey of the area, he was convinced that the traffice prob-
lems are caused by the fact that most of the existing buildings do not have off-
street parking spaces for their tenants. Under the circumstances, he believed
that the best way to solve the problem would be to encourage new developments in
which off-street parking spaces would be provided so that Clay Street could function
as an east-west traffic artery.
Commissioner Ritchie, noting that part of the property owned by Mr. Monaco's
clients is zo ed R-4 while the remainder is zoned R-5, asked Mr. Monaco to comment
further on what the effect would be if the entire property were re-zoned to R-4.
Mr. Monaco replied that the lease held by Mr. Patmont 's clients requires that the
property be developed; and he felt that R-4 zoning would make development of the
site economically infeasible. He believed that the vacant property should be devel-
oped to its maximum potential; and, while such a philosophy might sound capitalistic,
he felt that capital does have some rights in this world.
William B. McCormick, 56 Pleasant Street, stated that he had lived on Nob Hill
for 15 years and that he presently lives in an apartment building which has three
flats. He felt that change should be permitted; and he remarked that he had
understood that the Interim Residential Zoning Controls, which were recently enacted,
were intended to discourage large-scale neighborhood rezoning requests such as the
one which was presently under consideration. He felt that the best way to approach
the situation in a logical manner would be for the Nob Hill Neighbors to compromise
and to allow the City Wide Residential Re-zoning Study to be completed before
changing the present zoning pattern on Nob Hill. In conclusion, he noted that that
study is supposed to be completed in 2 years and 8 months.
Michael Carroll, Attorney for a trust which owns the property at 1244 - 50
California Street, stated that the property had been purchased by the trust in 1959
in reliance of the zoning which was then in effect; and he indicated that the zoning
was confirmed by inclusion of the property in the R-5 zoning district when the new
zoning ordinance was adopted in 1960. He stated that he did not feel that people
have an inalienable right to preserve their views in existing high-rise buildings;
and he remarked that the thrust of the present applications was considerably diff-
erent from that of other major re-zoning applications in areas such as the Richmond
district where the purpose of the re-zonings was to stop the construction of apart-
ment buildings in areas which have a single-family residential character. He em-
phasized that Nob Hill is a high density neighborhood; and he felt that people must
have been aware of that fact when they moved to the neighborhood. He believed that
planning should be done by professional fanners and not by neighborhood residents.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -15- MARCH 28, 1974
A member of the audience observed that he seemed to be the only Chinese person
present; and he advised the Commission that he was very much opposed to the proposed
reclassification. He stated that the Assessors' records show that 80% of the prop-
erties in the subject neighborhood are owned by Chinese -Americans who do not belong
either to the Nob Hill Association or the Nob Hill Neighbors. He urged the Commis-
sion to vote against the proposed reclassification and to maintain the status quo.
The Secretary called attention to letters which had been received in support
of and in opposition to the requested reclassification and indicated that he had
been requested to read a letter from Dorothy Fritz -Cope, as follows:
"We would like to voice our objection on the Application to Change
Zoning Classifications #ZM73, 29, and ZM73.19. San Francisco has spent
over $285,000.00 along with 10 years of study and public hearings to
create the San Francisco Urban Design Plan, which has won national acclaim.
To abruptly toss this fine plan out and adopt piecemeal zoning would be
a shame. The City Planning Commission and its staff have worked such
long tedious hours to give us a plan to eliminate just the kind of spot
zoning that will be recommended to the Commission at the forthcoming
hearing on March the 28th.
"In addition, SanFran ciscans must remember that we can depend on
the 'discretion' of the Planning Commission to deny requests for Appli-
cations of Special Variances. Furthermore, the City Planning Depart-
ment now requests an Environmental Impact. Study be made on any building
applications presented to the City.
"We believe the present plan should be given a chance to work.
We respectfully request that these Applications be denied."
Vice President Porter, noted that the hearing was concluded, asked the mem-
bers of the Commission if they wished to take action on the applications at the
present time or if they wished to defer action until a full Commission is present.
Commissioner Rueda felt that a bad precedent would be established if the Com-
mission were to defer action until all members of the Commission were present; and,
therefore, he moved that the Commission proceed to act on the applications during
the present hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mellon. When the
question was called, the Commission voted unanimously to proceed to act on the two
subject applications during the present meeting.
Commissioner Ritchie read the following statement:
"Several speakers, opponents of the application, have singled out
one or two individuals for attack, or criticism, because of the specific
locations of their apartments.
"I would like to comment that every person almost always has at
least one personal reason, or condition, for joining into an issue
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -16- MARCH 28, 1974
such as this, and appearing here. But, in a larger sense, I think that
all who have spoken today have done so with the over-all good of the
entire neighborhood in mind, and I am sure that much time and research
has been given to the serious problems before us by each speaker, both
pro and con. Therefore I would like to make objection to the singling
out of any particular owners for condemnation or criticism by any of
the speakers. Remember that the person you have opposed or criticized
may have reasons just as sound as yours for his position."
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, gave the following recommendations:
"As stated earlier, you have been considerinp two separate applications,
one related to height and bulk, the other to basic land use. Thus two
separate actions are required of the Commission.
"On the first application related to height and bulk, I recommend
DISAPPROVAL because 1) The existing height limits now in effect were
only recently adooted by the Board of Supervisors in 1972 .after exten-
sive well advertised public hearings by both the Commission and the
Board 2) The existing height and bulk districts for Nob Hill are in
keeping with the building height and bulk guidelines contained in the
Urban Design Element of the City's Master Plan. Basically, I believe
the existing height limits for Nob Hill are appropriate for this
downtown, hill top residential area.
"On the application to reclassify to R-4 that portion of the sub-
ject area zoned R-5 and to reclassify to R-3.5 that portion zoned R-4
I recommend APPROVAL of the reclassification from R-5 to R-4 , with
the exception of lots 9, 10, 11, and 33 in Block 222; and DISAPPROVAL
of the reclassification from R-4 R-3.5. 1) Other than disapproval
of the R-3.5 proposal would be inconsistent with my recommendation
that the present height limits be retained as the R-3.5 district car-
ries with it height restrictions that would be inconsistent with the
existing height limits. 2) The residence element of the Master Plan
calls for high density residential development on Nob Hill; R-4
zoning would be consistent with this designation R-3.5 would not.
3) R-3.5 standards are more restrictive than much of the existing de-
velopment on Nob Hill, but few buildings exceed R-4 standards.
4) There appears to be little City need for R-5 standards of develop-
ment in the subject area. 5) The high density that could occur under
R-5 if on a neighborhood wide basis would result in severe congestion
of streets in the area with adverse effect on access to private prop-
erty and possible lack of ability to give adequate protection from
fire and other dangers.
"This recommendation is based upon the present options permitted
by the existing provisions of the Planning Code. However as the Com-
mission knows the Department will be conducting a city-wide residen-
tial zoning. During this study the Department will be taking another
MINUTES OF THE. REGULAR MEETING -17- MARCH 28, 1974
look at Nob Hill, and this study which may result in recommendations
to modify many of the zoning standards presently applicable to Nob
Hill."
After further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Mellon, seconded by Commis-
sioner Rueda, and carried unanimously that Resolution No. 7168 be adopted and that
application ZM73.19, involving Height and Bulk Reclassifications, be disapproved.
Mr. Monaco asked if it would be possible for the Commission to re-zone Block
34 and Block 222 from R-4 to R-5. The director replied in the negative, indicating
that the nature of the subject application would not permit the Commission to change
existing R-4 zoning to R-5.
After further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Mellon, seconded by Com-
missioner Ritchie, and carried unanimously that Resolution No. 7169 be adopted and
that application ZM73.29 be approved in part and disapproved in part as recommended
by the Director of Planning.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynn E. Pio
Secretary
SAN FRANCISCO
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of the Regular Meeting held Thursday, April 4, 1974.
The City Planning Commission met pursuant to notice on Thursday, April 4,
1974, at 2:15 p.m. in Room 232, City Hall.
PRESENT: Walter S. Newman, President; Mrs. Charles B. Porter, Vice-President;
John C. Farrell, and Thomas J. Mellon, members of the City Planning
Commission.
ABSENT: Mortimer Fleishhacker, John Ritchie, and Hector E. Rueda, members of
the City Planning Commission.
The staff of the Department of City Planning was represented by Allan B. Jacobs
Director of Planning; George A. Williams, Assistant Director - Plans and Programs;
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director - Implementation (Zoning Administrator); John
Phair, City Planning Coordinator; Daniel Sullivan, Planner IV (Zoning); Joseph
Fitzpatrick, Planner III; Calvin Malone, Planner III; Marie Zeller, Planner III -
Administrative; Carl Ness, Planner II; Lynn E. Pio, Secretary.
Larry Liebert represented the San Francisco Chronicle; Donald Canter representei
the San Francisco Examiner and Dan Borsuck represented the San Francisco Progress.
CURRENT MATTERS
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, distributed a newly printed information
manual and forms for disclosure of economic interests as required by State law.
The Director continued his report as follows :
"Before you is a list of nine projects which are proposed for
inclusion in the supplemental report to the Capital Improvement
Program report of January 20, 1974. The list contains projects
which are included in the regular budget but which were submitted
too late for inclusion in the Commission's January 20 report,
supplemental budget submissions and additions to the proposed
bond program.
"The list contains several significant projects. The project
for the Performing Arts Center represents the second of five $1.0
million increments which the City has proposed to allocate to the
project. At this time, project planning has not advanced sufficiently
enough for any detailed design review. For this reason, I wish to
call the Commission's attention to the policy statement which is
included for this item.
"Under the Department of Public Works, a project is being proposed
for the Rehabilitation Assistance Program to provide first phase
specification funds from gas taxes for the project. The construction
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 2 - APRIL 4, 1974
phase, which will go f orward in later years, will provide for sidewalk
narrowing, street corner extensions, islands, drainage, street lighting
and street landscaping as part of the City's contribution to the Upper
Ashbury and Inner Richmond program areas.
"Several bond proposals are included in the supplemental report.
With the exception of the Yerba Buena Center revenue bond, the proposals
are included in the report to meet the administrative code requirement
that a bond proposal must appear in the Commission's report for at
least two years prior to its submission to the electorate. With
planning work underway for each of these proposals, it seem desirable
to include them in the program at this time.
"If there should be any questions regarding these projects, I
would be happy to answer thenu"
After discussion it was moved by Commissioner Farrell, seconded by Commissioner
Mellon and carried unanimously that the projects be approved as in conformity with
the Master Plan subject to the recommendations and notes contained in the staff report.
The Director recommended the adoption of a draft resolution which he had pre-
pared to request a supplemental appropriation of $500 to permit one member of the
staff as well as one member of the Commission to attend the annual conference of
the American Society of Planning Officials to be held in Chicago, Illinois, from
May 11 through May 16. After discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Porter,
seconded by Commissioner Mellon and carried unanimously that the draft resolution
be adopted as City Planning Resolution No. 7170.
The Director reported that the Department of City Planning' s budget for the
next fiscal year had been reviewed by a sub-committee of the Board of Supervisors
last Thursday night.
The Director then read the following statement:
"As you will recall, the Commission last December authorized
the expenditure of a HUD $3500 grant and the signing of a contract
with Sedway/Cooke to prepare a reuse plan for the Hunters Point
Shipyard. The study was begun in January and should be completed
in June.
"The proposed plan is intended to provide background data as
well as land use and circulation guidelines for the reuse of the
Shipyard. The plan will enable us to assist the Mayor's Office
of Economic Development, which has the major responsibility con-
cerning the conversion of the Shipyard to civilian uses. Although
the Shipyard is included in the South Bayshore Element of the Master
Plan, much of it is~there designated as 'Housing, Common, and Personnel
Support Facilities — Naval Shipyard. * The Shipyard is zoned P and
M-l.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 3 - APRIL 4, 1974
"The consultants are here today to give us a progress report
upon completing Phase I of the contract work which has primarily
dealt with policy surveys and the assembly of data leading to the
identification of land use options.
"I'd like to introduce Arthur Goldman and Jim Bottors of
Sedway/Cooke and Dick McElyea of Development Research Associates
(who is working with Sedway/Cooke preparing economic evaluations),
"Art Goldman will be presenting the progress report."
Following the progress report, the consultant responded to questions raised
by members of the Commission.
Carl Ness, Planner II, presented and summarized a statistical profile report
on the South of Market area. The report is available in the files of the Department
of City Planning.
Lee Meyerzoze, Co-chairman for the Central City Coalition, stated that his
group regarded the proper southern boundary of the South of Market area to be 16th
Street at the foot of Potrero Hill; and he noted that the southern boundaries of
the area studied by the staff coincided roughly with the central skyway and the
China Basin Channel. He also expected that the staff would proceed to publish a
report which would recommend changes of zoning in the South of Market area to
permit housing to be constructed in the neighborhood; and he requested that people
from the neighborhood be allowed to participate in the writing of the report in-
stead of being placed In a position of reacting to something prepared entirely by
the staff.
The Director stated that the report which had just been presented to the
Commission was simply a statement of facts; and, as a result, the staff had not
worked with the community as the report was being prepared. However, as the staff
becomes involved with actually planning for the South of Market area, he assured
the Commission that members of the community would be involved.
Mr. Meyerzoze felt that the factual data contained in the report could have
been presented in a different way which would have given a better picture of the
community. He remarked that Filipinos were not mentioned in the report; and he
believed that the data could have reflected the community's aging problem and its
youth problem.
The Director reminded the City-wide Comprehensive Plans Committee (Commissioner
Newman, Mellon, Ritchie) of a meeting scheduled next Thursday, April 11, 1974, at
12:00 noon.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 4 - APRIL 4, 1974
ZM74.3 - 2471 - 73 WASHINGTON STREET, SOUTH LINE, 91.5 FEET EAST OF
FILLMORE STREET
R-3 TO A C-2 DISTRICT.
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director - Implementation (Zoning Administrator),
referred to land use and zoning maps to describe the subject property which is an
irregular lot with 54.5 feet of frontage on Washington Street and a depth varying
from 48.19 feet on the westerly property line to 97.69 feet on the easterly property
line. He stated that the boundary of the C-2 district bisects the subject lot,
leaving 2,246.8 square feet of the property in an R-3 district and 1,517.9 square
feet of the property in the C-2 District. The subject application requested re-
classification of the R-3 portion of the property to C-2. Mr, Steele stated that
the R-3 portion of the property is developed with two dwelling units and a garage
and that the C-2 portion of the property is developed with a dwelling. He stated
that it was his understanding that the applicant wished to convert the dwelling
units into offices for psychiatrists; however, if the R-3 property were to be
classified to R-2, the property could be used not only for psychiatrists' offices
but for any of the commercial activities permitted as principal uses in the C-2
district.
James S. Malott, the applicant, stated that there was no way in which the
building on the R-3 portion of the property could be used for offices unless the
subject application were approved since medical offices cannot be authorized as
conditional uses in an R-3 district. He remarked that a number of similar uses
presently exist on Webster Street; and he did not feel that psychiatric offices,
which would actually serve residents of the neighborhood, would have any damaging
effect on the neighborhood.
President Newman stated that he had received a telephone call from the owner
of the property located to the east of the subject site advising him that he had
no objection to the reclassification proposal. He had also received a letter from
William H. Gilmartin, 2224 Clay Street, which read as follows:
"I will be unable to attend the April 4 meeting at which time
the Commission will consider ZM 74.3 relating to expansion of com-
mercial zoning on the property situated at 2471-2473 Washington
Street.
"When we were having extensive meetings with the Planning
Staff relative to Pacific Medical Center one thought was firmly
impressed on my mind, namely that the neighborhood should be
vigilant regarding the expansion of commercial zoning. While
this requested expansion is not hospital oriented I am opposed
to it since once a breakthrough is allowed it will be difficult
to stop the next attempt, and there certainly will be others.
"I hope that you and your fellow directors will reject
the expansion requested under ZM 74.3 and thus help maintain
the residential character of the neighborhood."
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 5 - APRIL 4, 1974
The Secretary called attention to nine letters which had been received in
opposition to the subject application, including a letter from the Pacific Heights
Association.
Commissioner Porter stated that it was her understanding that use of the
property could not be restricted to psychiatrists' offices if the application for
reclassification of the property to C-2 were to be approved. The Director confirmed
that Commissioner Porter's understanding was correct.
John Kirkpatriclc, 2332 Washington Street, represented the Pacific Heights
Association. He stated that his organization was opposed to the proposed reclassifi-
cation for several reasons. They feared "creeping" commercialism in their neighbor-
hood; and, in that regard, he felt that it was interesting that the owner of the
property to the east of the subject site had indicated that he was not opposed to
the applicant's request. He felt that it was likely that the other owner does not
reside on his property; and he assumed that that property owner would wish to obtain
commercial zoning for his property, also, if the subject application were to be
approved by the Commission. Mr. Kirkpatrick emphasized that a commercial district
already exist on Fillmore Street in which psychiatrists' offices are permitted as
a permitted use; and, in conclusion, he stated that he feared that a more intensive
commercial use would inevitably take advantage of commercial zoning on the subject
property if the subject application were to be approved by the Commission,
A resident of Washington Street represented the Pacific Heights Neighborhood
Council. While she acknowledged that the applicant had improved the appearance of
the subject property, she stated that her organization was opposed to the proposed
reclassification.
Mrs. Arthur Bloomfield, 2329 Webster Street, emphasized that the Commission
had already approved reclassification of a number of R-4 properties in the neighbor-
hood to R-2; and she noted that the Commission's previous recommendations had been
returned by the Board of Supervisors for further consideration at a hearing scheduled
to be held on April 18. She stated that residential uses far out-weigh the number
of commercial uses in the area; and she remarked that the C-2 portion of the subject
property is the only property fronting on Washington Street between Franklin and
Divisadero Streets which is actually used conraercially. She informed the Commission
that residents of the subject neighborhood were opposed to any extension of existing
commercial zoning in the area; and she indicated that she was glad that Commissioner
Porter had pointed out that use of the property could not be restricted to psychi-
atric offices if the application were to be approved. She stated that it was her
understanding that the entire parcel of property had been leased by one tenant who
intended to sub-lease the building on the R-3 portion of the lot since it could
not be sound-proofed to accommodate his needs. Since the building would be rented
in any case, it seemed to her that it should make little difference whether the
building is rented for residential or office use. A sub-lease for office use might
bring more revenue to the principal lease-holder; but it would bring additional
inconvenience to the neighborhood.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 6 - APRIL 4, 1974
Mr. Steele recommended that the application be disapproved. He stated that ~~
Fillmore Street serves as a principle commercial frontage in the subject neighbor-
hood; and he felt that approval of the subject application could establish a
precedent for commercial expansion away from the Fillmore commercial area and into
the residential area along Washington Street. He indicated that the split-lot
coning that presently exists on the subject site had resulted from cutting off
the rear portion of the commercial lot which principally fronts on Fillmore Street
and merging that cut-off ^portion with a residential lot fronting on Washington
Street so that the split-lot zoning is a natural consequence due to action by
the owner of the property involved at the time. He remarked that the applicant
had not demonstrated that the public necessity, convenience or general welfare
requires reclassification of the property; and, finally, he noted that elimination
of the two dwelling units which presently exist on the residentially-zoned portion
of the lot would conflict with the residential element of the Master Plan in that
it would reduce the city's existing housing stock.
Mr. Malott remarked that any future proposal for intensive commercial use of
the property could be made the subject of a discretionary review before the Com-
mission. In the meantime, he felt that use of the property for medical offices
would not have any detrimental impact on the neighborhood; and he emphasized that
there would be no way of using the R-3 portion of the property for medical offices
unless the subject application were to be approved. He pointed out that the
Presbyterian Medical Center has a large parking garage; and he noted that public
transportation to the subject property is excellent. Under the circumstances, he
did not feel that the proposed use of the property would result in any traffic or
parking congestion. In conclusion, he stated that substantial remodeling would be
required to provide necessary security for the residentially-zoned portion of the
property if that portion of the property were to remain in residential use; and he
believed that the remodeling required would render the building uneconomic if only
residential tenants were to be accommodated.
After further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Porter, seconded by
Commissioner Mellon, and carried unanimously that Resolution No, 7171 be adopted
and that the subject application be disapproved.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
Lynn E. Pio,
Secretary
s8bN FRANCISCO
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of the Regular Meeting held Thursday, April 11, 1974 .
The City Planning Commission met pursuant to notice on Thursday, April 11,
1974, at 1:00 p.m. at 100 Larkin Street.
PRESENT: Walter S. Newman, President; Mrs. Charles B. Porter, Vice-
President; John C . Farrell, Mortimer Fleishhacker, Thomas
J. Mellon and John Ritchie, members of the City Planning
Commission .
ABSENT: Hector E. Rueda, member of the City Planning Commission.
The staff of the Department of City Planning was represented by Allan B.
Jacobs, Director of Planning; Edward I. Murphy, Assistant Director of Planning;
Samuel Jung, Planner IV; Edward Michael, Planner III; and Lynn E. Pio, Secretary
Larry Liebert represented the San Francisco Chronicle; Donald Canter re-
presented the San Francisco Examiner; and Don Borsuck represented the San
Francisco Progress.
1:00 P.M. Field Trip
Members of the Commission and staff departed from 100 Larkin Street at
1:00 p.m. to take a field trip to properties in Pacific Heights which will be
the subject of a zoning hearing to be held on April 18, 1974.
2:15 P.M. 100 Larkin Street
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved by Commissioner Porter, seconded by Commissioner Ritchie ,
and carried unanimously that the minutes of the meetings of February 21 and
March 21,1974, be approved as submitted.
CURRENT MATTERS
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, informed the Commission that the
City Attorney's office had advised that the requirement for filing financial
disclosure forms has been stayed pending final determination of a lawsuit
appealed to the State Supreme Court.
President Newman asked if the City Attorney's office would render that
opinion in writing. The Director replied that he had been promised that a
written opinion would be forthcoming.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -2- APRIL 11, 1974
The Director continued his report with the following statement:
"Two weeks ago the City Planning Commission took under
advisement consideration of the preparation of a subdivision
ordinance for San Francisco that would include condominium
subdivisions and conversions. At that time it was estimated
by staff that such an ordinance could be prepared and enacted
within a minimum period of from four to six months with the
joint help of the City Attorney's office and the Department of
Public Works .
"A draft condominium moratorium ordinance was recently
submitted to the Board of Supervisors by the Park Merced
Residents Organization, prohibiting, for a specified six
month period, the conversion of existing apartment buildings
to condominiums. Apartments having ten or more units would
fall under this moratorium. This draft moratorium ordinance
will be considered by the Planning, Housing and Develop-
ment Committee next Tuesday, April 15th. Mr. Michael
Carroll, representing the Park Merced Resident Organization,
has requested permission of the Commission to speak on
this proposed moratorium ordinance this afternoon.
"If the Commission favors, it might hear from Mr. Carroll
now and then I am prepared to make recommendations on this
matter. "
At this point in the proceedings, Commissioner Mellon arrived in the
meeting room and assumed his seat at the Commission table.
Mr. Carroll advised the Commission that there are legal precedents for
the proposed moratorium ordinance insofar as similar ordinances have already
been adopted by San Jose, Tiburon, and Pale Alto. He felt that there is a
compelling need for such an ordinance in San Francisco to prevent conversions
until proper controls have been drafted to govern such conversions . Although
the proposed moratorium ordinance had been drafted to apply to all conversions
of buildings containing more than 10 dwelling units, he stated that the figure
of 10 dwelling units was arbitrary; and he indicated that he would be willing
to accept any modification of that figure which might be recommended by the
Director of Planning, providing that the figure selected would be less than the
number of units in Park Merced .
In conclusion, he requested that the Commission endorse the proposed
moratorium .
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -3- APRIL 11, 1974
Commissioner Fleishhacker asked if the moratorium would be effective
as of the date that it is signed by the Mayor. Mr. Carroll replied in the
negative, indicating that he had been adviced that it could not be treated as
"emergency" legislation.
The Director offered two recommendations, as follows:
"1. That my staff procede with the staffs of the
Department of Public Works and the City
Attorney's office to draft a subdivision
ordinance that would include condominiums
as a section thereof;
"2 . That the City Planning Commission endorse
in principle this first draft moratorium ordinance
with the recommendation to the Planning, Housing
and Development Committee that consideration
be given to raising the number of units to be
exempted to 25 rather than 10 as presently drafted."
President Newman asked if interested members of the public would be
invited to participate in the drafting of the sub-division ordinance.
The Director replied that the public would be invited to participate in
public hearings before the City Planning Commission and the Board of Super-
visors once the draft ordinance has. been prepared .
Commissioner Ritchie, noting that the proposed moratorium ordinance had
been drafted by one party to a dispute, suggested that it might be preferable
for the Commission to draft and ordinance of its own rather chan to endorse the
one which had just been presented. Otherwise, it seemed to him that it might
appear to the other party to the dispute that the Commission had acted in haste
Edward I. Murphy, Assistant Director ox Planning, stated that the pro-
posed legislation had been drafted by the Par!; Merced Residents Organization
with assistance from Mr. Kcnealey of the City Attorney's office; and the
legislation had been introduced into the Board of Supervisors for formal con-
sideration. Under the circumstances, he saw no reason for the Commission
not to endorse the legislation if it was in agreement with the basic content
of the legislation which was to establish c 5 month moratorium. After further
discussion it was moved by Commissioner Ritchie , seconded by Commissioner
Porter, and carried unanimously that the first draft of the moratorium ordinance
be endorsed in priniciple with the recommendation that consideration be given
to raising the number of units to be exempted to 2 5 rather than 10 as in the
present draft. Commissioner Mellon abstained from voting on this matter be-
cause of a possible conflict of interest.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -4- APRIL 11, 1974
The Director then asked if the Commission wished him to proceed with
the drafting of a sub-division ordinance, working with the staffs of the Depart-
ment of Public Works and the City Attorney's office. The Commissioners
replied in the affirmative .
Commissioner Ritchie stated that he had received a resolution from the
Human Rights Commission requesting that the City Planning Commission in-
clude and correlate racial and ethnic data in its housing and residential studies
and reports . He asked if that request could be fulfilled .
The Director replied that the Department has and will continue to provide
such information to the best of its ability.
President Newman directed that a response be prepared to the Human
Rights Commission advising that such information will be provided whenever
possible .
Commissioner Porter stated that she had received a letter from Toby
Levine, President of the Mission Planning Council, requesting that the Com-
mission and the Board of Education work closer with the Mission community
in preparing plans for development of a school on the Regal Pale site at 20th
and Harrison Streets . The Director stated that the staff of the Department
of City Planning is studying the request .
R74.10 - OFFICIAL SIDEWALK WIDTHS: FRANCISCO BAY
OFFICE PARK. BAY AND MONTGOMERY STREETS.
Samuel Jung, Planner IV, reported on this matter as follows:
"Bay Street between Kearny and The Embarcadero has
not had an official sidewalk width. The proposed width,
8 feet, would maintain the same road width as exists west
of Kearny. The Francisco Bay Office Perl; development on
this blocl; will maintain a 15 -foot setback and provide a 12-
foot sidewalk abutting the building. The remaining 3 feet
and the 8-foot official sidewalk area will be landscaped
and will extend the double row cf trees from the sewage
Lreatment plant block west of Kearny.
"On Montgomery Street from Francisco to Chestnut
sidewalks are officially 15 feet wide. It is proposed to
widen Montgomery's roadway by throe feet and to add
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -C- APRIL 11, 1974
3 feet of sidewalk on Francisco Bay property, thus re-
taining the 15-foot walk but changing the official width
to 12 feet. An additional 11 -foot landscaped setback
will be provided along the building. The reason for
widening the road is to permit a reasonable road width
(11-1/2 -ft. lanes) and parallel parking on both sides.
The proposed width, 37.75 feet, is 3 feet narrower
than Francisco Street's width.
"Because Bay Street is designated as a major
thoroughfare in the Plan for Transportation, it would
not be desirable to establish a sidewalk width which
would narrow the roadway at its mouth. The provision
of a wide sidewalk on private property is consistent
with Policy 1, Objective 3, of the Plan to 'widen
sidewalks where intensive commericel, recreational
and institutional activity is present.' This applies
also to Montgomery Street, hence the developers
were required to furnish a 15-foot sidewalk even
though three feet will be on their property. "
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, recommended that the sidewalk
widths being proposed be approved as in conformity with the Master Plan.
No one was present in the audience to be heard on this matter.
After discussion it was moved by Commissioner Mellon, seconded by
Commissioner Fleishhacker, and carried unanimously that the Director be
authorized to report that the establishment of an official sidewalk width of
8 feet on the south side of Bay Street between Kearny Street and the Embarcadero
and that the change of the official sidewalk width on the east side of Mont-
gomery Street between Chestnut and Francisco Streets from 15 feet to 12 feet
are in conformity with the Master Plan.
R74.14 - WATER DEPARTMENT SURPLUS LAND AT SANTA BARBARA
AVENUE AND COUNTY LINE.
Samuel Jung, Planner IV, reported on this matter as follows:
"Part of an abandoned pipe line right of way 20 feet wide
remains on both sides of Santa Barbara Avenue at the County
line. A segment of the right of v/ay immediately west, fronting
to Santa Crus Avenue, was declared surplus and sold in 1957
to the owner of the abutting parcel on the north. Farther west
the right of way is still in use .
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -5- APRIL 11, 1974
"At Santa Barbara Avenue the right of way is diagonal
to the street and also crosses into San Mateo County. It is
proposed to break the segment at the county line into two
parcels to be sold to the abutting owners , giving a better
back yard to the house inside San Francisco, and giving
22 -foot frontage to the triangular vacant lot in Daly City.
The lot currently has no frontage.
"The segment on the east side of Santa Barbara Avenue
could be sold to either abutting owner. It might be advantageous
to also split this segment in a way that will help square up
the angular adjoining parcels. The right of way has no potential
for public use due to its shape and location. Its best use is
to foster low-density residential development, as designated
for this area in the Comprehensive Plan for Residence."
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, recommended that sale of the
surplus right-of-way to abutting parcel owners be approved as in conformity
with the Master Plan.
No one was present in the audience to be heard on this matter.
Commissioner Fleishhacker stated that he assumed that the city has
abandoned the concept of constructing a pipeline in the area. Mr. Jung replied
that the pipeline has already been built on a different alignment.
After further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Mellon, seconded
by Commissioner Porter, and carried unanimously that the Director be authorized
to report that the sale of Surplus Water Department right-of-way to abutting
parcel owners only, located on both sides of Santa Barbara Avenue at the county
line and shown on PUC Drawing B-3530, is in conformity with the Master Plan.
R74.15 - ARMY STREET WIDENING BETWEEN CASTRO AND DIAMOND
STREETS .
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, reported on this matter as follows:
"The Director of Property has forwarded for Master Plan
review a proposal to accept title to a 14 -foot strip on the north
side of Army Street mid-block between Diamond and Castro
Streets .
"Army Street has never been constructed in this block due
to topographic problems, however asphalt driveways have been
built on much of its length to serve the developed properties.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -7- APRIL 11, 1974
At the middle of the block the south property line is 30 feet
higher than the north one, and a steep slope occupies most
of the street's width. Rather than to bear the expense of
building a retaining wall and widening the road within the
present right of way, the developer of die property on the
north side of the street proposes the widening occur on a
14 -ft. strip he would add to the street's width.
"The design proposed by DPW provides a 24 -foot
wide roadway at each end and 2S feet in the middle section,
with a 6 -foot sidewalk • A retaining wall will still be required
along the south side, varying from two to ten feet in height.
The excessive height occurs for a short distance, and could
be reduced with minor design changes.
"The zoning is R-l along the proposed widening and to
the west. To the east is R-3 zoning and a rambling apart-
ment structure which uses this road for access. Seven
single-family homes can be built along the strip, and if
they have double garages, there will be nostreet parking
except along the retaining wall. For this reason it is
important to provide a road of sufficient width to allow
the parking strip, end 26 feet would be the minimum
required to do so. The resulting lot depth, 100 feet, per-
mits legal lot size.
"Acceptance of the deed to this strip is in conformity
with the Master Plan in that it will enable low-density
residential development in accordance with the Plan for
Residence . "
Concluding his report, Mr. Jung stated that he had learned that morning
that the Department of Public Works will not proceed with construction of the
roadway until another parcel of private property is donated for the right-of-way.
Furthermore, the project will be carried out only if the costs are found to be
reasonable .
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, recommended that acceptance of
the deed to the property be approved as in conformity with the Master Plan.
No one was present in the audience to be heard on this matter.
After discussion it was moved by Commissioner Fleishhacker, seconded
by Commissioner Porter, and carried unanimously that the Director be authorized
to report that acceptance of the deed to a 14-foot strip on Army Street between
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -7& _ APRIL n 1C?/,
Castro and Diamonds Streets, as shown on Bureau of Engineering map A-17-114,
is in conformity with the Master Plan.
LM74 .3 - CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSAL TO DESIGNATE THE
PACIFIC UNION CLUB AT CALIFORNIA AND MASON
STREETS AS A LANDMARK.
Commissioner Fleishhacker asked if the staff was aware of any opposition
to the proposal to designate the building as a landmark. Edward Michael,
Planner III, replied in the affirmative . He stated that a representative of the
Pacific Union Club had appeared before the Landmarks Preservation Advisory
Board to protest the designation; and he indicaLed that a letter had been received
for the Commission earlier in the day from Robert E. Burns, President of the
Pacific Union Club, in opposition to the proposed designation.
President Newman read the letter which had been received from Mr. Burns,
as follows:
"The Pacific Union Club has stated its position of opposition
to the designation of its property as a landmark in its letter dated
Febrary 27, 1S74 to the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board.
A copy of that letter is enclosed.
"We request that this letter and our letter to the Landmarks
Preservation Advisory Board be made a part of the record in this
proceeding. "
President Newman then read the letter which had been addressed to the
Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board, as follows:
"The Pacific-Unicn Club wishes to record its opposition
to the designation of its property as a landmark of the City
and County of San Francisco. "Without d etailing all of the
grounds of our opposition, we submit that the designation
is an improper restraint on the alienation of the property
and that it also amounts to a deprivation of the use of the
property.
"We wish to e::press our appreciation to the Board for
the courtesies errtended to us and request that this letter
of opposition be made a part of the record in this proceeding."
Mr. Michael briefly summarized the history of the building and explained
why the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board had recommended that it be
designated as a landmark.
MNUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -C- APRIL 11, 1574
Commissioner Fleishhacker remarked that the Landmarks Preservation
Advisory Board's case report on the building contained a number of undocumented
statements; and he indicated that he would be reluctant to refer to such
statements in the Commission's resolution.
Commissioner Ritchie noted that the Landmarks Preservation Advisory
Board's case report on the building stated that the site is listed on the
National Registrar of Historic Places and has been designated a national
historical landmark by the United States Department of the Interior. Thus,
the building had already be recognized as a landmark; and he felt that it should
be designated as a landmark under the local ordinance.
Mr. Burns, who was present in the audience, stated that the Pacific
Union Club's opposition to the proposed designation was based generally on
the fact that imposition of landmark status on the property would place a
clear restraint on the alienation of the property, hindering the owners'
ability to sell. Lanmark designation would also place restrictions on the use
of the property and would hinder improvements which might or should be made.
He also believed that designation of the building as a landmark would con-
stitute a form of taking up property without just compensation. While it was
true that the building had been designated by the Department of. the Interior
as a landmark, he remarked that such designation had not imposed any
restrictions on the property or on the use of it. tie stated that the Pacific
Union Club has no intention of selling the property nor of devoting it to
another use; however, in case the club should wish to sell the property in
the future, landmark designation would mean that the city could delay the
sale for a year or more. He emphasized that the Pacific Union Club had
maintained the building to the extent possible in its orginal state; and he
indicated that the club intented to continue to maintain the building. As a
result, he felt that designation of the building as a landmark would be com-
pletely unnecessary and would only bring about extensive interference with
the olub's freedom to use the property.
No one else was present to speak in opposition to the proposal.
Commissioner Porter stated that she was sympathetic with the statement
which had been made by Mr. Burns; and she remarked that no one wants to
be subjected to additional legal restrains. However, the City Planning Com-
mission is responsible for administration of the Landmarks Preservation
Ordinance and has excerciseits responsibility to recommend the designation
of a number of different buildings as landmarks. She felt that if there ere
any beautLful landmark buildings in San Francisco, the Pacific Union Club
must head the list; and, for that reason, she moved that the building be
designated as a landmark.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -C- APRIL 11, 1974
The motion' " was seconded by Commissioner Ritchie . He stated that
he agreed with the statement which had been made by Commissioner Porter.
He further remarked that the San Francisco Landmarks Ordinance is actually
very weak . However, the purpose of the ordinance is to protect buildings
of architectural or historic merit; and , in view of the fact the Pacific Union
Club has both historic and architectural significance, he felt that no one
could deny that it should be designated as a landmark. He stated that the
building had been considered before the Landmarks Preservation Advisory
Boawd a number of years ago; however, since the building appeared to be in
no danger at that time, the Board had deferred action so that it could con-
centrate on buildings which were more likely to be threatened . While the
building had escaped designation at that time, he felt that designation of
the building as a landmark was inevitable..
Commissioner Fleishhacker stated that the argument which had been
made by Mr. Burns really was directed more against the existence of the
Landmarks Ordinance than it was against designation of the Pacific Union
Club as a landmark, given the existence of the ordinance.
Mr. Burns stated that he was opposed to the Landmarks Ordinance only
to the extent that it affects the Pacific Union Club.
Commissioner Fleishhacker remarked that the Landmarks Ordinance does,
in fact, exist; and he indicated that the members of the Commission have sworn
to uphold the law. The issue presently under consideration by the Commission
was whether the Pacific Union Club is or is not a genuine landmark; and, if
the building is a landmark, he felt that the Commission was compelled to up-
hold the law and to recommend that it be designated as a landmark. He
believed in all honesty that the fears which had been expressed by Mr. Burns
were somewhat illusory or imaginary; and he remarked that the Commission
had heard similar arguments on several occasions in the past. On the other
hand, some property owners have realized that landmark designation is in the
best interest of the citizens of San Francisco and have wanted their buildings
to be designated as landmarks. He believed that the members of the Pacific
Union Club, who are a reasonably representative group, should favor the
preservation of their building as being in the best interests of the community.
He stated that he did not see how the Commission could say that the building
is not a landmark; and, therefore, he intended to vote in support of the motion
which had been made by Commissioner Porter.
President Newman stated that the Commission does have a responsibility
to preserve and protect the city's landmarks. He noted that the members of
the landmarks Preservation Advisory Board hed voted unanimously to recommend
that the Pacific Union Club be designated as a landmark; and he believed that
MNUTES OF THE. REGULAR MEETING -10- APRIL 11, 1974
the building is one of the city's most important landmarks. Designation of
the building as a landmark would have no effect other than to delay demolition
of the structure for as long as one year; and he indicated that he supported
that objective of the ordinance.
Commissioner Mellon emphasized that Mr. Burns had stated that the
Pacific Union Club has no intention of selling its building; and, therefore,
designation of the building as a landmark should be no problem in that re-
gard. However, he wondered how landmark designation would affect the
club's flexibility in maintaining the building. Mr. Michael replied that
controls under the Landmarks Crdinance extend only to exterior alterations
where permits are required; and, since no permits are required for painting,
designation of the building as a landmark would not affect routine maintenance
of that sort.
Commissioner Ritchie emphasized that the only real effect of designation
would be to delay the issuance of a building permit for up to one year. He
remarked that some people, including himself , believed that owners of land-
mark buildings should have no right to demolish their buildings; and, in that
regard, he felt that the San Francisco's Landmarks Ordinance is really very lax.
Mr. Burns stated that viewpoints of that sort were one of the reasons
that the Pacific Union Club was objecting to the proposed designation of its
building as a landmark. If legislation were to be passed specifying that
landmark buildings cannot be demolished, the effect on such a law would be
a total taking of property without just compensation.
Commissioner Porter stated that she did not agree with the viewpoint
which had been expressed by Commissioner Ritchie; and she doubted that any
city in the country has an ordinance which prohibits the demolition of landmark
buildings . However, she did feel that it is unlikely that the Pacific Union
Club will be demolished in the forseeable future.
Commissioner Fleishhacker again requested that the Commission's
resolution of approval not be referenced directly to any of the unsubstantiated
statements contained in the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board's case
report.
When the question was called, the Commission voted unanimously
to adopt Resolution No. 7172 and to approve the proposal to designate the
Pacific Union Club as a landmark.
CURRENT MATTERS, CONTINUED
The Director stated that he had met earlier in the afternoon with people
who were concerned about the demolition of the old Sutro Mansion on the
Transmitter tower site on ML. Sutro; and he had confirmed that demolition of
MNUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -11- APRIL 11 ,1274
the building was required by the resolution which was adopted by the Com-
mission when it had approved construction of the transmitter tower. He had
advised the concerned citizens that they cculd appeal the issuance of the
demolition permit to the Board of Permit Appeals; however, one of the in-
dividuals had requested permission to address the City Planning Commission
on the matter.
Jamie Jamie son stated that he had tried to inspect the site earlier in the
day but had not been allowed to approach the building; and he hoped that the
Commission could be of assistance in obtaining permission for him to inspect
the premises. He felt that the building should be saved.
After discussion, the Commission suggested that Mr. Jamieson should
promptly appeal the issuance of the demolition permit to the Board of Permit
Appeals; and it requested the staff of the Department of City Planning to work
with the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board to determine whether the
building is, in fact, a landmark. If a determination is made that the building
is a landmark, the Commission indicated that it would take prompt action on
the matter.
The Director stated that the Department of City Planning has no power
to obtain permission for Mr. Jamieson to inspect the building since it is
privately owned .
The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynn E . Pio
Secretary
2\D DOCUMENTS
lit .VI AY 2 1 1974
SAN FRANCISCO
-~£lTi PLANNING COMMISSION san franc.sco
—* HfUIBUIC LIBRARY
_^,Minutes of Regular Meeting held Thursday, April 18, 1974.
The City Planning Commission met pursuant to notice on Thursday, April 18,
1974, at 2:15 p.m. in Room 282, City Hall.
PRESENT: Walter S. Newman, President; Mrs. Charles B. Porter, Vice-President;
John C. Farrell, Mortimer Fleishhacker, Thomas J. Mellon, John .' .
Ritchie, and Hector E. Rueda, members of the City Planning Commission
ABSENT : . None
The staff of the Department of City Planning was represented by Allan B. Jacobs.
Director of Planning; R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director-Implementation (Zoning
Administrator); Peter Svirsky, Planner V (Zoning); Marie Zeller, Planner Ill-Admin-
istrative; Lawrence Johnson, Planner II; Russell Watson, Planner II; and Lynn E.
Pio, Secretary.
Larry Liebert represented the San Francisco Chronicle; Donald Canter represents
the San Francisco Examiner; and Dan Borsuck represented the San Francisco Progress.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved by Commissioner Porter, seconded by Commissioner Ritchie, and
carried unanimously that the minutes of the meetings of March 7 and 14, 1974, be
approved as submitted.
CURRENT MATTERS
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, advised the Commission of a Field Trip
to be held next Thursday at 1:00 p.m. to visit properties to be considered during
the Zoning Hearing scheduled for May 2.
The Director reminded the Implementation Committee (Commissioners Fleishhacker,
Porter, Rueda) of a meeting scheduled next Friday, April 26, at 12:00 Noon.
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director-Implementation (Zoning Administrator),
distributed copies of a draft resolution which he had prepared to modify Resolution
No. 7151 to permit the Zoning Administrator to ho Id, preliminary" hearings for Condi-
tional Use Authorization for all residential care facilities. He explained that
the previously adopted resolution had authorized him to conduct preliminary hearings
only in cases where a facility has had 6 or fewer clients. The Director recommended
that the draft resolution be adopted. After discussion, it was moved by Commissioner
Fleishhacker, seconded by Commissioner Rueda, and carried unanimously that the
draft resolution be adopted as City Planning Commission Resolution No. 7173.
Mr. Steele stated that letters had been received from Marvin Edwards, President
of the Alamo Square Association, and John Kappel, 1119 Broderick Street, requesting
the Commission to undertake a discretionary review of plans for an apartment build-
ing proposed for the southeast corner of Hayes and Steiner Streets. He advised the
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -2- APRIL 18, 1974
Commission that the permit application for the building had been filed on October
11, 1973; and the Department of City Planning, on February 13, 1974, had approved
plans which reflected modifications which had been suggested by the staff of the
department, the Alamo Square Association, and a concerned neighbor. Mr. Steele
stated that he personally had reviewed the plans and had met with the applicant
who had agreed that the building would be constructed in conformance with the plans
and that it would comply with the height limit applicable to the site. Therefore,
he recommended that the request for discretionary review be denied. After discus-
sion, it was moved by Commissioner Porter, seconded by Commissioner Mellon and
carried unanimously that the request for discretionary review be denied.
The Director continued his report with the following statement:
"In accordance with the provisions of the Planned Unit Development,
approved for The Waterfront condominuum housing development at the
foot of Telegraph Hill, detailed plans for the second phase fo this
3 phase project have been prepared and are being presented to you today
for your review. The plans show 3 buildings, 84 feet in height, and
containing approximately 263 units. The Department staff finds these
plans in conformity with the intent of the preliminary plans submitted
with the application for The Planned Unit Development, neighborhood
representatives have reviewed these detailed plans and have expressed
approval of them. The architects are here to answer any questions you
may have . "
After discussion it was moved by Commissioner Mellon, seconded by Commissioner
Fleishhacker, and carried unanimously that .the detailed plans for the second phase
of the Condominium Housing Development T'.<m for the block bounded by Lombard, Mont-
gomery, Greenwich, and Sancome Streets be approved.
The Director then read the following statement:
"This is to report that the Planning Commission has received a
letter from Jane R. Brady, who had requested, and was granted on March
8, 1973, discretionary review of a then proposed 41 unit dwelling by
Hayman Homes on the south side of 25th Street opposite the intersection
of Homestead Street. This letter states that subsequent changes in the
plans have resulted in a withdrawal of the request made by her and
others from her neighborhood for discretionary review. This building
application No. 415259 filed for the subject project has now been
approved by this department, and forwarded to the Bureau of Building
Inspection. The plans which have been approved reduced the number of
dwelling units from 41 to 30, with resultant reduction in building
bulk, a substantially improved parking layout and reduction in curb
cuts, increased open space and landscaping, and improved exterior build-
ing appearance."
The Director distributed and commented on a summary of action taken by .the
Mayor's Office on the Department of City Planning' s budget for the next fiscal year.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -3- APRIL 18, 1974
The Director distributed copies of a report prepared by the Mayor's Office of
Community Development entitled "New Directions for Programming Community Develop-
ment and Housing" and indicated that he would summarize the report at the Commis-
sion's next meeting.
ZM74.4 - PACIFIC HEIGHTS: AREA BOUNDED GENERALLY BY UNION STREET, VAN
NESS AVENUE, BUSH STREET AND STEINER STREET. RECLASSIFICATION
OF ALL PROPERTIES PRESENTLY ZONED R-5, R-4, AND R-3, AND HAV-
ING A 40-FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT, TO AN R-2 DISTRICT. THE COMMIS-
SION, IN ITS ACTION, MAY ALSO CONSIDER RECLASSIFICATION TO
INTERMEDIATE ZONING DISTRICTS.
President Newman called on Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, who read the
following prepared statement:
"The matter before the Commission today is a proposal, referred
by the Board of Supervisors, to change zoning use districts in the
area bounded by Union Street, Van Ness Avenue, Bush Street and Steiner
Street. Where the present zoning is R-3, R-4, R-5, and the height
limit is 40 feet, the proposal would change the use district to R-2.
History of this Proposal
"This proposal is similar to a rezoning application filed by
the Pacific Heights Association in December 1972, which sought R-2
zoning in much of Pacific Heights and also covered the areas with
a height limit of more than 40 feet. That application followed soon
after the imposition or lowering of height limits throughout the
city in the summer of 1972.
"In May 1973 the City Planning Commission held a hearing on
the neighborhood rezoning proposal and made a recommendation to the
Board of Supervisors that would have changed the zoning in a sub-
stantial part of the area covered by the application, although the
recommendation in many cases did not reduce the permitted density
by as much as the application proposed.
"The Commission recommendation would have eliminated all R-5
zoning in the area. It would have placed R-4 zoning on all proper-
ties with a height limit of more than 40 feet and some properties
with a 40-foot limit. Much of the rest of the area would have been
R-3, with R-2 zoning applied in four new places in addition to the
two already zoned R-2.
"This recommendation was forwarded to the Board where it was
heard in Committee. After that hearing a member of the Board re-
initiated the part of the neighborhood application having to do
with the 40-foot areas by introducing that part at the Board for
referral to the Planning Commission. This was done because the
' ■
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -4- APRIL 18, 1974
part of the neighborhood application not recommended by the Commis-
sion was disapproved by the Commission and was therefore not before
the Board. It is this measure re-initiated at the Board that is
before the Commission today.
"There was also another matter introduced at the Board last
summer at the request of the Pacific Heights Association. That
was a proposed special use district that would have imposed special
controls on construction and conversion in the Pacific Heights area,
with a basic density limit of R-2 but a possibility of R-3 density
in individual cases, by conditional use, under criteria having to
do with size of units, rear yards, set-backs and parking.
"This special district proposal, and other circumstances, then
led to the development of interim controls by the Department, to be
applied throughout the city in R-2, R-3, R-3. 5, R-4 and R-5 districts.
These controls were adopted at the beginning of this year, and they
are intended to limit the scale of new buildings and assure retention
of open spaces while totally new zoning districts and standards are
being developed for the city over the next two years.
"Another recent occurrence was the lowering of height limits
by the Board of Supervisors from 80 feet to 40 feet south of the
Pacific Medical Center and in five blocks south of Lafayette Park,
after a recommendation by the Commission that the 80-foot limit be
retained. This change took place in August 1973.
The Proposal Sent from the Board
"The matter being heard today is a blanket proposal to change
properties now zoned R-3, R-4 and R-5 to R-2, which is a district
permitting buildings with two dwelling units on most lots, with
additional units allowed on larger lots at a ratio of one unit for
each 1500 square feet of lot area.
"This proposal goes considerably farther than the Commission
recommendation of last May. As was the case last May, the Commission
can consider intermediate zoning districts in its recommendation as
well as R-2. When a Commission recommendation is made to the Board,
the Board will have the option of voting upon that recommendation or
upon the proposal sent to the Commission by the Board. The Board
will not be free to amend either proposal.
Further Staff Analysis
'The staff of the Department strongly feels that a well-reasoned
recommendation for zoning in Pacific Heights should be sent to the
Board and adopted at an early date, so that the matter can be resolved
and work can proceed on the much-needed comprehensive revision of
residential zoning throughout the city.
!
. ' . i'
■
' • . "
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -5- APRIL 18, 1974
"With that end in view, the staff has again looked closely at
Pacific Heights, making a more current survey of numbers of dwelling
units on many of the properties and considering recent trends. Both
the actual density of units and the nature of the original construc-
tion have been considered as they affect the character of each street.
The quality of older buildings and the feasibility of their retention
have been looked at. Amounts of traffic have also been considered
as they relate to residential character.
"In addition, we have looked at new factors appearing in the
last year. One of these is the reduction of the height limit in
all or portions of seven blocks by the Board of Supervisors.
Another is the considerable number of conversions in certain parts
of the area, conversions that more often than not result in fewer
units in the building rather than more. The last year has also
seen an increased pace of renovations and improved maintenance,
apparently based upon the feelings of owners as to what the nature
of certain streets is or ought to be.
"The staff has attempted to be as responsive as possible to the
expressed wishes of owners and residents, consistent with sensible
zoning practice and with an accurate appraisal of current densities.
In comparison with the Commission's earlier recommendation for this
area, we have made more of an articulation of boundary lines accord^
ing to density .patterns in portions of blocks. The districts created
are still of reasonable size, however, to recognize streets or
sections of different residential character.
The Revised Staff Recommendation
"In the revised staff recommendation, areas having height limits
greater than 40 feet would again be R-4, as recommended last May.
Elsewhere, R-4 would be cut back considerably from the earlier
recommendation, appearing only along Broadway in the vicinity of
Octavia Street, in the vicinity of Franklin and Vallejo Streets, and
on the west and south sides of Lafayette Park. In all of these areas
existing densities are high.
"Much of the property formerly recommended for R-4 would become
R-3 or R-3.5, especially south of Sacramento Street where the height
limit has now been lowered to 40 feet and along the outer part of
Broadway.
"There also would be a considerable reduction a»f 1-4 and R-3
properties to R-2. These would include much of Pine Street, a
portion of Bush Street between Webster and Buchanan, Laguna between
Pine and Bush, and Webster between Pine and California. R-2 would
also be used on Steiner in the vicinity of Clay and Sacramento and
on portions of Clay, Washington and Jackson Streets west of Fillmore.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -6- APRIL 18, 1974
R-2 would be extended northward on the west side of Webster above
Washington, along the north side of Washington east of there, and to
portions of Washington and Laguna near Lafayette Park.
"In the northern section, the R-2 on Vallejo Street west of
Fillmore would be extended north to Green and south along Fillmore.
R-2 would be added in the vicinity of Vallejo and Buchanan. And a
large area of R-2 would be added at Green and Octavia, extending
eastward to Gough and down to Vallejo. One other R-2 area would be
added along Sacramento and California Streets, between Franklin and
Gough .
"Recognizing the neighborhood sentiment for lower density zoning,
the staff considered other areas as well for a reduction to R-2.
These other areas had to be discarded on the basis of prevailing
existing densities higher than R-2 and a character of development
more consistent with R-3 or R-3.5 zoning."
At 2:40 p.m. President Newman called a recess to enable members of the audience
to review a map posted on the wall of the meeting room which reflected the revised
staff recommendations. The meeting was reconvened at 2:55 p.m.
Bob Hogan, a Director of the Pacific Heights Association, reminded the Commis-
sion that a large proportion of the population of the subject neighborhood had
signed petitions in support of the association's original request for R-2 zoning;
and he noted that the association had compromised its request to a great extent in
the interim. He also indicated that the association had undertaken a study which
revealed that 517. of the lots affected by the subject application are presently
developed to R-l or R-2 standards. He stated that the individuals who were support-
ing the application wished to maintain the present physical character and family
character of their neighborhood. He again emphasized that the Pacific Heights Assoc-
iation's request for re-zoning had been totally changed in the interest of compromise
so that it now differed from the position of the staff of the Department of City
Planning in only two major respects. The first difference of opinion was that the
Pacific Heights Association continued to feel that more R-2 zoning is needed in the
area than that which was being recommended by the staff; and the second area of
concern was the staff's recommendation for R-3.5 and R-4 zoning on Broadway and
California Street..
Ralph Coffman, also representing the Pacific Heights Association, remarked that
R-3 zoning would probably help to maintain the existing structural character
of the neighborhood; however, he believed that only R-2 zoning would succeed in
retaining the family character of the neighborhood by preventing the existing build-
ings from being subdivided into dwelling units which would be too small for family
occupancy. He emphasized that a large proportion of the residents and property
owners in the area involved had expressed their desire for R-2 zoning. He stated
that many buildings on Grepn and Vallejo Streets had been subdivided into smaller
dwelling units which do not accommodate families; and, given the demand for family
housing, he felt that many of those buildings should be reconverted. In his opinion,
the staff of the Department of City Planning, in formulating its recommendation,
had ignored the possibility of such reconversions. He referred to a map which was
;
'
'
.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -7- APRIL 18, 1974
on display In the meeting room to explain the major differences between the staff's
recommendation and the Pacific Heights Association's request; and he distributed
photographs of some of the existing family housing in areas where the staff was
recommending R-3, R-3.5, or R-4 zoning. He stated that he felt it was extremely
important that the properties at the northast corner of Gough and Clay Streets
be zoned R-2 because of the threat that they will be demolished if they are zoned
for higher density; and the same circumstances applied to properties on the north-
west corner of California and Franklin Streets.
Commissioner Fleishhacker asked Mr. Coffman if he believed that R-2 zoning
on Green and Vallejo Streets would force the owners of converted buildings to re-
convert their structures to fa nily units. Mr. Coffman replied in the negative
but indicated that he believed R-2 would encourage property owners to reconvert
their buildings to R-l or R-2 standards, particularly if the property owners had
reason to expect that their neighbors would be undertaking similar reconversions.
Commissioner Ritchie pointed out that the staff of the Department of City
Planning had already recommended that the property at the northwest corner of
California and Franklin Streets be reclassified from R-5 to R-3; and, given that
vast reduction in zoning, he questioned why the Pacific Heights Association was so
anxious to have the zoning further reduced to R-2.
Mr. Coffman stated that the corner property is developed with a handsome struc-
ture which serves as a gateway to Pacific Heights. The property is presently on
the market; and, if sold, there was a possibility that the existing building would
be demolished and that the property would be subdivided into three lots. While R-3
zoning might discourage such event, he felt that R-2 zoning would enhance the chance
for preservation of the existing structure. In conclusion, he stated that the
members of his association do not oppose new construction in their neighborhood;
but they feel that new construction should be compatible with existing buildings.
In reply to further questions raised by Commissioner Ritchie, Mr. Coffman conceded
that R-3 zoning might encourage preservation of the existing building; however,
such zoning would encourage conversion of the building into smaller dwelling units
which would not attract families.
Commissioner Porter emphasized that the property at the northwest corner of
California and Franklin Streets was formerly zoned R-5; and, while she was not
prepared to state that rezoning of the property to R-2 would not be desirable,
she felt that the fact that such zoning would prevent any further development on
the site should be recognized.
Commissioner Ritchie asked if the Pacific Heights Association was attempting
to achieve more preservation of existing buildings or less people, or both. Mr.
Coffman replied that the association was seeking both objectives. In reply to a
further question raised by Commissioner Ritchie, Mr, Coffman stated that there
are some areas in the subject neighborhood in which R-2 zoning would be essential
in order to achieve both objectives.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -8- APRIL 18, 1974
Commissioner Rueda asked what criteria had been used by the Pacific Heights
Association in their definition of "family character." Mr. Coffman replied that
the "family character" in Pacific Heights has resulted from large dwelling units
which have attracted families with children.
Commissioner Rueda then observed that he knows many families who live in
R-3 buildings.
Commissioner Ritchie felt that the modified recommendations of the staff of
the Department of City Planning had come a long way toward meeting the concerns
which had been expressed by the Pacific Heights Association. Mr. Coffman agreed
and remarked that the Pacific Heights Association had compromised to a significant
extent as well.
Commissioner Ritchie then asked if the association did not feel that it was
going too far in requesting further modification of the staff recommendations.
Mr. Coffman replied that he felt that additional R-2 zoning was essential to
protect the character of the neighborhood by encouraging "downward conversions."
President Newman remarked that it appeared that Mr. Coffman was advocating
not just preservation but also a reduction of density in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Fleishhacker stated that he was aware that some reconversions
have occurred in the southern part of the subject neighborhood. He noted, however,
that the reconversions have occurred under R-3 zoning; and he wondered if there
was any reason to believe that the reconversions would not continue if the zoning
were not changed from R-3 to R-2.
Mr. Coffman stated that reconversions have occurred in the southern part of
the neighborhood because the smaller structures which exist in that area are more
conducive to single and double family occupancy than to multiple occupancy; how-
ever, he emphasized that other circumstances prevail in the northern part of the
neighborhood, particularly along Green and Vallejo Streets where the existing
structures are relatively large.
Commissioner Fleishhacker asked Mr. Coffman which areas of the neighborhood
seemed to him to be most in need of having the zoning density further reduced. Mr.
Coffman replied that he was most concerned about the Green/Valle jo Areas and about
three lots on the northeast corner of Clay and Gcugh Streets.
Commissioner Ritchie asked Mr. Coffman if he felt that there was a greater
chance that the existing building on the northwest corner of California and Frank-
lin Streets would remain if the property were to be zoned R-2 rather than R-3.
Mr. Coffman replied that the building would probably be purchased by someone who
would be willing to use it for R-2 purposes if the property were to be zoned R-2;
and he remarked that his association had found that higher or lower zoning does
not really change the value of houses and flats which have been maintained in
good condition. In reply to a further comment made by Commissioner Ritchie to
the effect that the Pacific Heights Association's request for R-2 zoning sounded
a bit like "arm-twisting" to require people to maintain their existing buildings,
Mr. Coffman replied that all zoning is restrictive.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -9- APRIL 18, 1974
Commissioner Porter remarked that the building on the northwest corner of
California and Franklin Streets has been designated as a landmark; and she indi-
cated that the owners of the property have given notice that they intend to
demolish the building. She stated that she did not understand how an owner could
be forced to maintain a building if he did not wish to do so.
Commissioner Ritchie observed that the Commission had already lowered the
height limit on the property at the northwest corner of California and Franklin
Streets and had designated the building on the site as a landmark; and he felt
that reduction of the zoning from R-5 to R-2 would be extremely unfair.
John Walker, also representing the Pacific Heights Association, pointed out
that the staff of the Department of City Planning had recommended R-2 zoning for
property located immediately west of the site under discussion; and he felt that
construction of an R-3 building on the corner would lessen the value of the neigh-
boring property. Furthermore, construction of such a building on that site would
have an impact on all San Franciscans. In his opinion, the question was not what
the owner of the property would lose but how much less profit he would be able to
make under R-2 zoning.
Commissioner Ritchie stated that he did not disagree that the structure on the
northwest corner of California and Franklin Streets is a fine building; and he noted
that it has been designated as a landmark. However, he felt that it would be unfair
to the owner of the property to try to preserve the building through zoning.
Mr. Walker stated that he also objected to the staff's recommendation for R-3. 5
and R-4 zoning on Broadway. He remarked that R-3. 5 zoning permits 30% more density
than R-3 zoning; and, in view of the fact that the majority of the buildings along
Broadway are actually single-family in present density, he felt that zoning along
that street should be reduced at least to R-3.
Commissioner Porter, noting that Mr. Walker is an architect, observed that much
of the dissatisfaction with R-3 buildings had arisen because of poor design; and
she remarked that the real answer to the problem might lie in better architecture
rather than in re-zoning from R-3 to R-2. Given present land and building costs,
she questioned whether people could actually afford to undertake new construction
in R-2 districts.
Mr. Walker stated that good R-3 buildings are really difficult to design.
In regard to the question about the cost of R-2 buildings, he remarked that one unit
in R-2 buildings is usually owner-occupied; and, as a result, he regarded such
buildings as a good investment.
Mr. Hogan stated that the conversion and remodeling of existing structures
maintains the physical character of the neighborhood and encourages densities in
keeping with the existing pattern. He advised the Commission that he earns his living
by converting older buildings; and he indicated that most of the buildings which
he has converted have been sold or rented to families. He stated that the zoning
proposed by the Pacific Heights Association would allow new construction where
appropriate; however, he felt that more square footage per dollar can be obtained
through conversions than through new construction, given current building costs.
He believed that most existing buildings which are threatened which are in bad repair
can be saved; and he felt that R-2 zoning would encourage their retention and con-
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -10- APRIL 18, 1974
version. He also emphasized that construction workers in San Francisco are pro-
vided with many jcbs as a result of conversion work. He agreed with Commissioner
Rueda that many families do live in apartment buildings; however, in most cases,
families are found only in older buildings which have large units. He stated that
he lives in an older apartment building which has three-bedroom units. In conclu-
sion, he acknowledged that some buildings in the southern part of the subject neigh-
borhood are being reconverted; and he pointed out that properties in that area have
been under an R-2 "freeze" for more than one year.
Commissioner Fleishhacker asked if it was likely that the reconversions have
actually occurred because of the R-2 "freeze." Mr. Coffman replied that the Pacific
Heights Association had gathered information about the reconversions. He stated
that most of the buildings on Pine and Bush Streets were originally built as smaller
Victorian homes; and, as a result, their most suitable use is as one/or two-unit
dwellings.
Commissioner Porter remarked that families with children used to live on Broad-
way, Vallejo and Pacific; but she was not aware that the areas east of Fillmore
Street were characterized as family neighborhoods. In fact, she did not recall
that many schools exist in that area. She acknowledged that people are returning
to the city from the suburbs; however, those who engage in the remodeling of older
buildings are usually either couples without children or single people.
Mr. Hogan stated that even children residing west of Fillmore Street are being
bused; and, therefore, the presence or absence of schools east of Fillmore Street
was of little significance. He stated that he had moved back to the city from the
suburbs; and he advised the Commission that he has three children. He assured the
Commission that there are many families with children living in Pacific Heights
east of Fillmore Street.
John F. Kirkpatrick, 2332 Washington Street, read a letter which had been
addressed to the Commission by Herbert McLaughlin, as follows:
"I am in full support of the Pacific Heights Association zoning
request. I feel strongly that the character of the Pacific Heights
Neighborhood should remain unchanged and, hence, that one/and two-
family housing stock should be encouraged to stay in the area. I am
a home owner and resident of Pacific Heights."
Lavonne Valentine, 2350 Franklin Street, stated that she was opposed to the
proposed "down-zoning." She indicated that her property was zoned R-5 when she
purchased it; and she was opposed to lowering the zoning of her proerty or of
other properties in the area merely to achieve the preservation of one or two old
houses. She also felt that one of the purposes of the proposed re-zoning was to
preserve the neighborhood for people who can afford to own single-family dwellings
in the area, in effect putting up a "keep out" sign for other people of lesser means,
She remarked that there has never been a great concentration of families in the
Pacific Heights neighborhood since people without a lot of money cannot afford the
taxes levied against properties in the area; and, by requesting that the zoning of
the neighborhood be reduced to family standards, she felt that the applicants were
using zonings as a tool of discrimination. She advised the Commission that her
MINUSES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -11- APRT.T. 18, 1974
building, which contains three dwelling units, is located only three doors away
from an 80-unit building; and, under the circumstances, she did not feel that it
would be fair to require her to reduce the number of units in her building. She
remarked that approval of the applicant's proposal would prevent the city from
growing; and, while she was not in favor of high-rise buildings, it did not seem
to her that the city should be turned back into a "cow pasture."
President Newman advised Mr. Valentine that the staff of the Department of
City Planning was recommending R-4 zoning for her property.
William H. Gilmartin, 2224 Clay Street, felt that the revised recommendations
of the staff of the Department of City Planning had come a long way toward meeting
the objectives of the Pacific Heights Association; however, he believed that some-
what more R-l and R-2 zoning in proportion with the existing density in the neigh-
borhood would be desirable. He observed that we live in a "throwaway" society which
tends to be wasteful; and he felt that we should be extremely careful about "throw-
ing away" attractive residential neighborhoods, especially since they are not being
built any more. In conclusion, he stated that it was his opinion that zoning which
would provide for a reasonable mix of single-family homes, duplexes, and apartment
buildings would be in the best interests of the subject neighborhood and the city
as a whole.
Edwin Wells, 1616 Vallejo Street, stated that it seemed to him that the issue
before the Commission was one of the neighborhood preservation versus real estate
economics and building pressures. He remarked that the city is fast becoming un-
able to cope with its problems; and, in the interest of safeguarding its residen-
tial neighborhoods, he felt that the least that the city could do would be to
establish realistic limitations. He felt that good buildings are the result of
enlightened controls. San Francisco has a reputation of a real city which is also
livable because its residential neighborhoods have been developed on a low scale;
however, unless action is taken to establish limitations on residential development
the low-scale residential character of the city will soon be lost.
Charlotte Maeck, representing the Pacific Heights Association, read the follow
ing letter which had been addressed to the Commission by Frank Chambers, Chairman
of the Board of Director of the Hamlen School:
"The Board of Directors of The Hamlin School would like to go on
formal record as supporting the Pacific Heights Association on
the proposed rezoning.
"As we have stated in previous communications, the very exist-
ence of The Hamlin School depends on the existence of family-type
accomodations in the Pacific Heights area. We believe that the re-
placement of existing structures with studio-type apartments will,
in the end, result in such decreases in enrollment that the School
will not be able to continue.
"We believe that the Pacific Heights Association has done a
highly commendable task in adjusting to the specific problems re-
lating to topography, traffic flow, and existing structures. We,
therefore, wish to highly recommend acceptance of their program as
it is now set forth."
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -12- APRIL 18, 1974
A representative of State Senator Milton Marks read the following letter which
the Senator had addressed to the City Planning Commission:
"I urge you to support the downzoning application of the Pacific
Heights Association, which I understand will be before your Commission
this Thursday.
"As you know, the neighborhood petitioned for a rezoning in 1972.
It was turned down by the Planning Commission in May of 1973, follow-
ing which the Board of Supervisors re -referred the matter to Planning.
It seems clear now that the application suffered by being in the mill
at the same time that you were working on interim zoning controls,
which tended to obscure the smaller fight waged by this one community.
"However, the neighborhood demands were not satisfied by the in-
terim controls—and so the matter is before you again. People are
rightly alarmed that the family character of much of the neighborhood
will be destroyed by zoning which allows R-4 in areas which are essen-
tially R-2.
"The city cannot afford to lose any family housing, when it is
in such drastically short supply. Furthermore, the impact of more
density in the area will lead quickly and inevitably to a deteriora*
tion in the quality of life for all who live or move there.
"When most public officials in San Francisco have committed them-
selves to policies for the rehabilitation and preservation of the
city's neighborhoods, it would be a great step backwards to allow
zoning to stand which would open one of the city's finest neighborhoods
to exploitation by those interested only in a quick profit."
Subsequently, speaking in her own behalf, Senator Marks' representative state
that she would like for her children to be able to enjoy a neighborhood such as
Pacific Heights in its present state.
Commissioner Porter asked if the statements contained in the letter meant
that Senator Marks was opposed to R-3 and R-4 zoning any place in the subject neif
borhood . The Senator's representative replied in the negative, indicating that
the Senator was opposed to R-3 and R-4 zoning only in areas where such zoning wou.'
destroy the environment of the neighborhood.
Thomas E. Curran, 111,2021 Pacific Avenue, made the following statement:
"My family and I are members of the Pacific Heights Association;
we are emphatically committed to its objectives, and I am here this
afternoon to urge you to s'lpport the proposal of the association,
which represents the only hope we have for preserving our neighborhood
as a place congenial to family-living.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING "13" APRIL 18, 1974
"It is quite clear to me that our neighborhood has become the tar-
get of speculators who are exerting constant pressure to turn our neigh-
borhood into a rabbit-warren to house a primarily transient population.
To demonstrate the position that our area of family-oriented structures
is rapidly and irreplaceably being eradicated, I submit a few figures
taken from records at City Hall.
"Since 1963 permits have been granted for construction of 1607
units in 62 structures. No permits were granted in this period for
one-or two-family houses, and there have obviously been none built.
The average number of units is 26 per structure. The 62 structures
demolished to make way for the new buildings accounted for 135 housing
units, as compared with the replacement figure of 1607. Thus, family
housing was replaced at an increase in density of 12 to 1. But this
is not the worst of the story; unhappily, a quarter of these permits
have been granted in the 2\ year period from January 1, 1971 to May
30, 1973, accounting in all for 679, or 42°'- of the new units con-
structed since 1963. This recent activity averages 45 units per
structure, or double the 10% year average of 26 per structure. The
pattern is preeminently clear -- not only has density been increasing
drastically in the last 10 years, but the rate of increase itself is
spiraling at a rate that is appalling, particulatly since in making
this tally, several structures have not been considered, notably,
Panorama Condominiums at Webster and Broadway with 20 units, 2120
Pacific with 60 units, and Sangiacomo's naked concrete behemoth with
more than 100.
"Of the 62 structures isolated, 23 or 40% have been erected on
just the three streets of Broadway, Pacific, and Vallejo. These streets
alone account for 801 of the new units constructed in the last 10%
years, half the total. Just two builders by themselves have generated
380 units in that period, and half those units are on these 3 streets.
The manifestations of the horrible increase in density on these streets
is self-evident -- noise at all hours, abominable air on still days,
zero parking, nothing green and no open space or yards on the grounds
of new buildings; no bay windows, no stained glass, no turrets, no
cupolas -- only stucco and concrete and plastic fountains and utterly
no character or charm.
"We beg you to put a halt to this trend. Help us preserve this
neighborhood as a family area, which is after all why we moved there
in the first place. To take it away from us would be wrong under the
best of curcumstances; to do so only to line the pockets of a crass
and avaricious few would be a crime. The residents of a neighborhood
have the right to determine the kind of place that neighborhood will
be -- and the feelings of the residents and home-owners of Pacific
Heights has been and will continue to be demonstrated to you this
afternoon. Heed them. Please save Pacific Heights."
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -14- APRIL 18, 1974
President Newman stated that he resented the implications of some of the state-
ments which had been made by Mr. Curran. He pointed out that the staff of the
Department of City Planning and the City Planning Commission had gone to some con-
siderable lengths in lowering height limits and zoning to protect the character of
Pacific Heights; and he felt that what Mr. Curran was really saying was that he
wished the Commission to go beyond the staff's recommendation and to grant every-
thing requested by the Pacific Heights Association.
Margaret R. Cunanfor, 1981 Pacific Avenue, informed the Commission that the
Pacific Heights Association has a terrific amount of support in the neighborhood;
and she stated that the Board of Supervisors, at the request of the association,
had asked the Commission to reconsider its previous action on the proposed re-zonin£
Commissioner Porter stated that members of the Board of Supervisors can vote
to overrule the Commission if they do not like its decision; however, the Board
can not legally tell the Commission what to do.
Mrs. James B. Frankel, 2418 Pacific Avenue, stated that she was in complete
agreement with the request of the Pacific Heights Association. She also felt that
the R-l "island" on both sides of Pacific west of Fillmore Street should be zoned
R-2.
Jay J. Levine, 2504 Pacific Avenue, indicated that he is a member of the ;.
Pacific Heights Association; and he urged the Commission to approve the association'
re-zoning proposal. He emphasized that the zoning approved by the Commission would
ultimately determine which buildings in the neighborhood are to be retained.
At 4:15 p.m. President Newman announced a f ivt- ninute recess. The Commission
reconvened at 4:20 p.m. and proceeded with hearing of the remainder of the agenda.
Mike Hall, 2395 Vallejo Street, stated that he had come to the hearing to
speak in opposition to the proposal to re-zone properties on Green Street from R-4
to R-3; however, since both the Pacific Heights Association and the staff of the
Department of City Planning seemed to be in agreement on R-3 zoning for properties
along that street, he was prepared to accept that zoning designation. He advised
the Commission that he owned small apartment buildings in the area which never have
vacancies; and he assumed that the larger aparmtent buildings in the neighborhood
have a low vacancy rate, also. Under the circumstances, it was obvious to him that
people wish to live in Pacific Heights and that they are willing to pay exorbitant
rents for that privilege; and he believed that families wishing to live in the
neighborhood should be willing to pay proportionate rates for the floor space which
they occupy.
Ron Arias, 2299 Sacramento Street, stated that he is a single person; and he
indicated that he resented implications made by previous speakers that his life
style is not the most desirable. He remarked that he was willing to pay the price
necessary to live in the subject neighborhood even though he does not have children.
He stated that he was not opposed to the proposed "down-zoning," primarily because
he felt it was important that the architecture of the area should be preserved;
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -15- APRIL 18, 1974
however, he was concerned about the fact that adequate off-street parking is not
provided in the area. He believed that most families, as well as single people
living together, have more than one automobile; and the City Planning Code require-
ment for one off-street parking space for each dwelling unit is not sufficient.
Alvin Baum, 2009 Green Street, felt that the staff of the Department of City
Planning had done a fantastic job in taking the concerns of the neighborhood into
account as they had formulated their revised recommendations; and he regarded it
as a matter of personal .judgment as to whether additionalareas should be zoned
R-2 as requested by the Pacific Heights Association. He stated that he owns two
properties on Green Street, each of which has three units; and he indicated that
he had reconverted one of the buildings, reducing the number of units from four to
three. He had also installed a garage in one of the buildings at considerable cost
because of the scarcity of on-street parking places. He believed that the lack of
parking spaces had resulted both from the growth of Union Street and from construc-
tion of a new apartment building one block to the east. The new apartment building
did provide one off-street parking space for each dwelling unit; but the single
people who live in the building have brought more than one automobile per unit to
the area. Thus, the problem of the neighborhood is not only one of people-density
but also one of automobile -density. He also believed that much of the value of
the subject neighborhood is directly related to the general high quality of the
existing buildings; and he felt that his properties were reduced in value when two
older buildings of good quality were torn down and replaced by a "block-buster"
apartment building. By the same token, if R-3 zoning would result in the destruc-
tion of existing buildings on the northeast corner of Clay and Gough Streets and
on the northwest corner of Franklin and California Streets and subsequent construc-
tion of "block-buster" apartment buildings on those sites, he felt that the value
of the neighborhood would be reduced.
David M. Hartley, 2418 Gough Street, advised the Commission that he is chair-
man of the Transportation Committee of the Pacific Heights Association. In response
to comments previously made by Commissioner Porter, he stated that there are several
elementary schools in Pacific Heights east of Fillmore Street; and he indicated
that a number of families do live in that area. He remarked that certain streets
in the neighborhood carry very heavy traffic loads and that on-street parking is
difficult throughout the neighborhood; and he felt that construction of new apart-
ment buildings was contributing to both the traffic and the parking problems of the
neighborhood. As an example, he indicated that a new 42 -unit apartment building
is being constructed at Gough Street and Broadway; and he remarked that the number
of automobiles crossing the sidewalk to gain access to that building will be equal
to the number of automobiles crossing the sidewalk in the next three blocks.
President Newman inquired about the number of dwelling units in the subject
neighborhood and about the population of the area. The Director replied that the
neighborhood has approximately 11,500 dwelling units and a population ranging be-
tween 16 and 18,000 people.
William L. Ferdon, attorney for the owner of property located on the northwest
corner of California and Franklin Streets, spoke in support of the staff's recom-
mendation for R-3 zoning for his client's property. He emphasized that the height
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -16- APRIL 18, 1974
limit on the property had already been reduced; and, when the Commission had pre-
viously considered the Pacific Heights Association's application, the property had
been proposed to be re-zoned from R-5 to R-3. He noted that he had requested R-4
zoning for the property at that time; however, he had lost by one vote. Some of
the previous speakers had referred to his client's property as "the gateway to
Pacific Heights"; but he pointed out that the property might also be regarded as
a gateway to Sausalito, Corta Madera, and points beyond. The fact of the matter
is that the property is located at one of the busiest intersections in the city.
He advised the Commission that the building occupying the property is not in perfect
condition; and, as a result, preservation of the building could not have been ex-
pected if the property had retained its R-5 zoning and its 120-foot height limit.
He stated that he had never regarded his client's property as being a part of Pac-
ific Heights; and he noted that even the boundaries claimed by the Pacific Heights
Association ended only one block to the east at Van Ness Avenue. He stated that
his client would be willing to accept R-3 zoning for the property; however, R-2
zoning, as requested by the Pacific Heights Association, would not be reasonable.
Although the property has been zoned R-3 for one year, no one has offered to buy
the site with the objective of preserving the building. Therefore, proceedings had
been initiated for obtaining a demolition permit; and an Environmental Impact Report
is being prepared on that proposal. In any case, issuance of the demolition permit
could not be delayed for more than one year. Given the location of the property,
he did not see how any development of the site could possibly affect people living
elsewhere in Pacific Heights. In conclusion, he remarked that the recommendations
of the staff of the Department of City Planning would give the Pacific Heights
Association virtually everything it had requested with only three points of variance:
and he felt that the staff's recommendations represented the ultimate in effective
compromise. Therefore, he urged that the recommendations of the staff be approved.
Kenneth H. Brown, 2280 Vallejo Street, remarked that the staff of the Depart-
ment of City Planning, in preparing its recommendations, had generally observed
existing density patterns rather than the wishes of people living in the blocks
affected. As a case in point, he advised the Commission that the owners of 18 out
of the 22 lots in his block had expressed their desire for an R-2 zoning designa-
tion; yet, the staff of the Department of City Planning had recommended that the
entire block be zoned R-3. He stated that a 43-unit apartment building was beiqg
constructed on the south side of Vallejo Street which will house approximately
100 people; and he felt it was unfortunate that a lot comprising 157,, of the block
had been developed with a building which will double the population of the block
in addition to bringing guests and numerous automobiles into the area. Given the
existence of that building, he felt that it was extremely important that the north
side of Vallejo Street should be zoned R-2 in order to stabilize the situation.
Conmissioner Fleishhacker observed that most of the properties in Mr. Brown's
block have already been developed to R-3 standards; and, as a result, he felt that
it would be somewhat unusual to re -zone the properties to R-2.
Commissioner Ritchie asked the Director to comment on Mr. Brown's presentation.
The Director replied that the staff had taken many factors into consideration in
formulating its recommendations for the overall area including existing land use,
the desires of residents in the area, traffic conditions, and the condition of
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -17- APRIL 18, 1974
maintenance. With regard to the block in which Mr. Brown's property is located,
existing land use had been the over-riding factor. He stated that the block is
developed to R-3 density; and, unlike Mr. Coffman, he did not believe that reclass-
ification of the block to R-2 would encourage deconversions.
Commissioner Porter remarked that the staff of the Department of City Planning
had not been aware that one of the buildings in Mr. Brown's block had been converted
yet, she had understood that one-for-one parking must be provided for new dwelling
units when conversions take place. Under the circumstances, she felt that some
conversions must have taken place illegally; and she wondered if the staff could
estimate the number of illegal conversions in the neighborhood.
The Director confirmed that off-street parking spaces must be provided for new
dwelling units resulting from conversions. He stated that he had no idea how many
illegal conversions might have taken place in the subject neighborhood.
Mr. Brown stated that the peole residing in his block have already been h '.rt
by the R-4 building which has been constructed across the street; and, as a result
they were anxious to obtain R-2 zoning in order to stabilize the area. He also felt
that some of the owners in the block do intend to reduce the number of units in
their buildings.
Alison Massa, 1836 Pine Street, indicated her support of the revised staff
recommendation which would result In the re-zoning of her block from R-5 to R-2.
Lyne Lau, representing the owners of a vacant parcel of property located at
1915 California Street, stated that that property is presently zoned R-5; and she
expressed concern about the effect which the proposed "down-zoning" would have on
the development potential of that lot, referring to a letter that had been submitted
to the Commission.
President Newman stated that the staff of the Department of City Planning was
recommending that the property to which Miss Lau had addressed herself be included
in an R-3. 5 district; and he asked if that zoning would be acceptable. Miss Lau
replied that R-3. 5 zoning might be acceptable; however, any lower density zoning
classification would be undesirable.
Craig Beckstead, 2026 California Street, stated that he is a single person
who resides in a Victorian house; and he indicated that he was concerned with the
preservation of habitable Victorian structures. In his opinion, the R-3. 5 zoning
which the staff of the Department of City Planning was recommending for California
Street would threaten the values and life style of people living in that area; and
he wished that the Commission would vote to reclassify that area to R-3.
Henry Prien, 2140 Pacific Avenue, acknowledged that the staff of the Depart-
ment of City Planning had progressed a long way toward reducing density in the neigh
borhood; however, in areas where the staff and the Pacific Heights Association were
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -18- APRIL 18, 1974
at odds, he felt that the proposals of the Pacific Heights Association should be
adopted by the Commission in the interest of protecting the neighborhood. He stated
that he was not advocating a reduction in the population of Pacific Heights. On
the other hand, he felt that population growth in Pacific Heights should be propor-
tional to the population growth of the city as a whole; and he noted that the pop-
ulation of the city has been decreasing rather than increasing in recent years.
One of the Commissioners had asked one of the previous speakers to indicate areas
where he felt that emphasis for further re-zoning should be placed, given the fact
that he could not get everything that he wanted; and if he had been given that choice
he would have stated that the area north of Sacramento Street is' the most important.
Mrs. Diantha Nielsen, a trustee of the estate which owns property located at
1834 California Street, noted that adjacent property on the northwest corner of
California and Franklin Streets, which is also occupied by a landmark building, had
been recommended for inclusion in an R-3 district whereas the property with which
she was concerned had been recommended for inclusion in an R-2 district; and she
asked why such a distinction had been made between the two properties. She felt
that there might be some logic in R-2 zoning for properties on the northern half
of the block fronting on Sacramento Street; but it seemed to her that R-2 zoning
would be less appropriate for the property located at 1834 California Street.
The Director stated that the staff had recommended that the property located
at 1834 California be zoned R-2 becuase of its present density and because it is
contiguous to properties on the south side of Sacramento Street which are developed
in conformance with R-2 standards.
Mrs. B. Kirshenbaum, 2518 Gough Street, endorsed the proposal of the Pacific
Heights Association. She stated that she knows at least one family of seven people
who occupy a Victorian house in Pacific Heights and who pay approximately the same
amount of rent as other people pay for new studio apartments. Given such a rental
structure, it was obvious to her that families cannot afford to live in new apartment
buildings being constructed in the area; and, in many cases, children are not allowed
in those buildings. She also confirmed that there are numerous schools located in
the neighborhood east of Fillmore Street.
Mrs. Arthur Bloomfield, 2229 Webster Street, stated that she is a member of
the Pacific Heights Neighborhood Council; and it was her understanding that her
organization had sent a letter to the Commission supporting the Pacific Heights
Association's request for "down-zoning." She indicated that she was pleased that
concessions had been made since the matter was last before the Commission; however,
she agreed with the Pacific Heights Association that more R-2 zoning would be desir-
able. She particularly felt that property owners on Washington Street in the vicin-
ity of her home would prefer R-2 zoning instead of the R-3 zoning which was being
recommended by the Staff.
Commissioner Poster remarked that none of the previous speakers had mentioned
the new Interim Residential Zoning Controls; and she wondered if they had taken into
consideration the fact that the Interim Controls have set new standards for rear
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -19- APRIL 18, 1974
yard areas in R-3 districts. As a result, buildings which are constructed in R-3
districts in the future will have appreciably less density than those which were
constructed in the past.
Peter Svirsky, Planner V (Zoning), confirmed that the Interim Residential
Zoning Controls will have an effect on the size of R-3 buildings. Lots with a
depth of 100 feet will be required to have a 45-foot rear yard; and lots with a
depth of 120 feet will be required to have a 55-foot rear yard.. As a result, only
3 off-street parking spaces could be provided on a lot having dimentions of 25 feet
by 120 feet whereas the density provisions of the R-3 district would otherwise have
permitted four dwelling units on such lots.
Joleen Hammons, 2150 Jackson Street, read and submitted a letter from Florence
Somberg, President of the Pacific Heights Merchants and Property Owners Association
Inc., stating that her organization supported in principle the "down-zoning" request
ed by the Pacific Heights Association.
Miss Hammons then stated that she is single and that she lives in an apartment.
In supporting the "down-zoning" of the neighborhood, she did not do so out of antag-
onism to apartments or single people but because she felt that R-2 zoning would
preserve the balance between individuals and single families which presently exists
in the neighborhood.
Arden Danekas, representing the Planning Association for the Richmond (PAR),
indicated that he wished to add his support to the Pacific Heights Association's
request for re-zoning; and he stated that he felt that people who live In a neigh-
borhood should have a voice in determining appropriate zoning classifications for
their properties.
A member of the audience represented Richard M. Conway, owner of property
located at 1735 Franklin Street. He stated that the property with which he was
concerned is located immediately north of the property on the northwest corner of
California and Franklin Streets which had been the subject of discussion earlier
in the hearing; and he wondered what effec demolition of the building on that site
and replacement of the building with a new apartment building would have on the sun
and light available to the adjacent property.
Commissioner Ritchie observed that the surest way for the owner of the property
at 1735 Franklin to protect his sunlight would be to buy a portion of the garden
of the adjacent parcel of property.
Bruno Morelli, 1739 Vallejo Street, stated that he had no objection to the
proposed "down-zoning." However, he was concerned about the fact that R-4 propertie
fronting on Broadway and backing on his property might be permitted to build to
their rear property lines, thus blocking windows in his house which is built on the
property line.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -20- APRIL 18, 1974
Commissioner Ritchie indicated that Mr. Morelli's house could not be built on
the rear lot line under present standards; and he stated that the properties front-
ing on Broadway would be required to maintain rear yard areas, thus providing some
protection for Mr. Morelli's existing building.
Mr. Svirsky confirmed that there is a rear yard requirement for properties
fronting on Broadway. In any case, the zoning of those properties was not covered
by the matter presently before the Commission for consideration because those prop-
erties are not subject to a 40-foot height limit.
Franklyn Lyons, representative for the 1960 Broadway Corporation, the 1998
Vallejo Corporation, and the Broadway, Laguna, Vallejo Association, asked the Com-
mission to accept the recommendation of the staff of the Department of City Planning,
The Director stated that he felt the staff had considered most of the issues
which had been raised during the course of the public hearing and had reacted in a
positive manner wherever possible. One issue which had not been raised previously,
however, was the proposal that reconversions might be encouraged if areas already
developed to R-3 standards were to be zoned R-2. While he thought that it might
make sense to re -zone such areas to R-2 if and when they have been reconverted, he
believed that reclassification at the present time would be inappropriate and pointeo
out that it would give the existing buildings non-conforming use status. He felt
that Commissioner Porter's remarks about the family or non-family character of the
neighborhood were well taken; and he also noted the significance of her comments
relative to the effect which the Interim Residential Controls will have on R-3
construction. Neighborhood residents who had spoken had continually stressed that
they wished new development to be compatible with existing development; and he felt
that it was clear that the staff of the Department of City Planning felt the same
way. Therefore, in spite of the few areas of disagreement, he did not look on the
matter as a "we opposed to they" situation; and he hoped that the members of the
Pacific Heights Association were of the same opinion. He stated that the staff had
looked very carefully at the equities involved; and he believed that the staff had
done as detailed a job as has ever been done on a re-zoning case involving such a
large area. He stated that the Commission could either take action on the matter
during the present meeting or take the matter under advisement for further study.
He noted that the Commissioners had take a field trip to the subject neighborhood;
and, therefore, if they should decide to vote during the present meeting, their
action would be based on a thorough knowledge of the neighborhood. In acting on
the matter, the Commission would be in a position to change the staff recommendation
if it so desired.
Commissioner Porter remarked that the Commission had made revolutionary zoning
changes in Pacific Heights during the past two years, reducing height limits in many
areas of the neighborhood from 120 feet or more to 40 feet and adopting interim
residential controls which make rear yard areas with a minimum depth of at least
45 feet mandatory. Under the circumstances, it will no longer be possible to build
the type of R-3 buildings which were constructed in the past. She stated that the
Commission does wish to preserve the character and beauty of the city's residential
neighborhoods; but she also emphasized that the Commission has a responsibility not
to unreasonably inhibit the growth and development of San Francisco. She indicated
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -21- APRIL 18, 19/4
that she was not entirely certain what effect the reclassifications being recom-
mended by the staff would have on the neighborhood; however, given the amount of
staff work which had been involved, she felt that the staff recommendations should
be adopted at the present time so that the Commission and the community will have
an opportunity to observe what effect the new zoning will actually have. Subse-
quently, if it should become clear that adjustments are needed in certain small
areas of the neighborhood, changes could be made. She then moved that the staff
recommendations be approved.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mellon.
President Newman stated that he was concerned about the block which had been
mentioned by Mr. Brown during the course of the hearing; and he noted that the Com-
missioners, during their field trip to the area, had returned to look at that block
a second time. In appearance, if not in actual density, the block has more of an
aspect of an R-2 district than of an R-3 district; and Mr. Brown had indicated that
a majority of the property owners in the block wished to have their properties
zoned R-2. Yet, the staff of the Department of City Planning was recommending that
the block be zoned R-3. He asked the Director to comment further on that issue.
The Director acknowledged that the block has an R-2 appearance; however, he
pointed out that individual members of the Commission had been surprised at the
number of dwelling units found in many of the buildings when they were on their
field trip. He stated that more than half of the structures on the block are
developed to R-3 and R-4 standards; and, for that reason, the staff of the Depart-
ment of City Planning had recommended that the block be zoned R-3. He felt that
the block serves as a good example of how older buildings can be converted into a
larger number of dwelling units without changing the basic character of a neighbor-
hood. In conclusion, he stressed the point previously made by Commissioner Porter
that the type of R-3 buildings constructed in the past is no longer permissible.
Commissioner Fleishhacker noted that Mr. Brown's desire for lower density
zoning had been generated by the construction of a large apartment building across
the street from his property; and he observed that present zoning controls would
preclude construction of a similar building today.
President Newman felt that it was important to consider the fact that the new
Interim Residential Zoning Controls require a rear yard with a minimum depth of
45 feet; however, if existing buildings in Mr. Brown's block were to be demolished,
he wondered what types of buildings might be constructed in their place under R-3
zoning. The Director replied that he believed that it would not be possible to
construct new buildings with more than 3 units on most of the lots in the block.
Commissioner Ritchie indicated that he had previously sided with the Pacific
Heights Association in its request for more R-2 zoning when action was previously
taken by the Commission because he felt that R-2 zoning would give a strong guaran-
tee that the character of the neighborhood would be preserved. However, the pres-
ent recommendations of the staff of the Department of City Planning, according to
the Director, could be said to satisfy more than 75% of the Pacific Heights Associ-
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -22- APRIL 18, 1974
ation's request; and, in view of the fact that approval of the staff recommendations,
which had been carefully worked out, would represent a major accomplishment for the
Pacific Heights Association, he indicated that he would support the motion.
When the question was called, the Commission voted unanimously to adopt Reso-
lution No. 7174, approving proposal ZM74.4 in part in accordance with the recommend-
ation of the Director of Planning, and disapproving the remaining part of the sub-
ject proposal.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:45.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynn E. Pio
Secretary
f 1 25/74
SAN FRANCISCO
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of the Regular Meeting held Thursday, April 25, 1974.
The City Planning Commission met pursuant to notice on Thursday,
April 25, 1974, at 1:00 p.m. at 100 Larkin Street.
PRESENT: Walter S. Newman, President; Mrs. Charles B. Porter, Vice-
President; John C. Farrell, Mortimer Fleishhacker, John
Ritchie, and Hector E. Rueda, members of the City Planning
Commission.
ABSENT: Thomas J. Mellon, member of the City Planning Commission.
The staff of the Department of City Planning was represented by Allan
B. Jacobs, Director of Planning; George A. Williams, Assistant Director -
Plans and Programs; Robert Passmore, Planner V (Zoning); Lucian Blaze j,
City Planning Coordinator; Selina Bendix, Environmental Review Officer;
William Duchek, Planner III; Glenda Skiffer, Planner II; Moira So, Planner
II; Nathaniel Taylor, Planner II; and Lynn E. Pio, Secretary.
Doctor Washington E. Garner, President of the Police Commission,
Chief Scott, Captain Sully and Lieutenant Jordan represented the Police
Department.
Larry Liebert represented the San Francisco Chronicle; William Flynn
represented the San Francisco Examiner; Dan Borsuk represented the San
Francisco Progress; and Jessica Cafferato represented radio station K101.
1:00 p.m. Field Trip
Members of the Commission and staff departed from 100 Larkin Street
at 1:00 p.m. to take a field trip to properties scheduled for consideration
during the Zoning Hearing to be held on May 2, 1974.
2:00 p.m. Room 282, City Hall
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved by Commissioner Fleishhacker, seconded by Commissioner
Farrell, and carried unanimously that the minutes of April 4, 1974, be
approved as submitted.
CURRENT MATTERS
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, reminded the Implementation
Committee (Commissioners Fleishhacker, Porter, Rueda) of a meeting scheduled
for Friday, April 26, at 12:00 noon.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -2- April 25, 1974
The Director informed the Commission that the Board of Supervisors,
meeting on Monday, had sustained the Commission's disapproval of a proposed
reclassification of property in the 200 block of Roosevelt Way from R-4
to R-2.
The Director advised the Commission that the Board had also voted to
approve for second reading the proposed condominium moratorium ordinance,
incorporating the Commission's suggestion that the moratorium apply only
to buildings with 25 or more dwelling units.
PRESENTATION OF POLICE FACILITIES ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN- -
A PROPOSAL FOR CITIZEN REVIEW.
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, introduced Lucian Blazej, City
Planning Co-ordinator, who presented and summarized the report.
The Director advised the Commission and the audience that public
hearings will be scheduled on the report on June 5 and 13, 1974.
President Newman thanked Doctor Garner, Chief Scott, Captain Sully
and Lieutenant Jordan for attending the presentation of the report.
At 2:50 p.m. President Newman announced a 10 minute recess. The
Commission reconvened at 3:00 p.m. and proceeded with hearing of the re-
mainder of the agenda.
EE74.61 - CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR
THE CHINATOWN (STOCKTON/SACRAMENTO) REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF STOCKTON AND SACRAMENTO
STREETS.
Selina Bendix, Environmental Review Officer, summarized the draft
environmental impact report for this project. The Commission then
received comments from members of the audience including Harry Chuck,
Co-chairman of the Chinatown Coalition for Better Housing; Soon Lim, a
Chinatown resident; Edith Witt, representing the Human Rights Commission;
Leonard Natov, of Blenkov Associates, owners of properties located at 814
and 840 California Street; Ronald Pengilly, attorney for owners of properties
which would be acquired for the proposed project; Ronald H. Kahn, Attorney
for the owner of 840 Powell Street; Wally Stokes, a private citizen;
Lambert Choy, representing the Presbyterian Church in Chinatown, sponsor
of the proposed project; Wong Quon Lum, a private citizen; and Alice Barkley,
a private citizen.
After discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Porter, seconded by
Commissioner Fleishhacker, and carried unanimously that Resolution No. 7175
be adopted with the following resolves:
"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission
does hereby find that the Final Environmental Impact Report, dated
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -3- April 25, 1974
April 25, 1974 concerning EE74.61, Stockton/Sacramento Redevelopment
Project, is adequate, accurate and objective, and does hereby
CERTIFY THE COMPLETION of said Report in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act and the State Guidelines;
"AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Commission in certifying
the completion of said Report does hereby find that the project as
proposed will not have a significant effect on the environment".
REVIEW OF MASTER PLAN CONFORMITY OF THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR THE STOCKTON/SACRAMENTO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT.
Robert Passmore, Planner V (Zoning), noted that the proposed plan
had been described in the Environmental Impact Report which had just been
considered by the Commission. He stated that the Commission had found the
preliminary plan for the project to be in conformity with the Master Plan
in 1972; and he indicated that State law requires that the final plan, also,
be reviewed to determine its conformity with the Master Plan.
William Mason, Assistant Director, Planning and Programming, Redevel-
opment Agency, indicated that he had no statement to make at this point;
however, he was prepared to respond to any questions which might be raised
by members of the Commission.
Commissioner Ritchie remarked that the Commission has not previously
had an opportunity to approve or disapprove final building plans for
redevelopment projects. He felt that the city already has enough redevel-
opment monstrosities without constructing another ugly project on the
slopes of Nob Hill; and, therefore, unless some assurance could be given
that the Commission would be able to review and act on final building plans
for the proposed project, he indicated that he would not vote to certify
the redevelopment plan as being in conformity with the Master Plan.
President Newman stated that the Commission does not have the right
to act on final building plans for redevelopment projects.
Commissioner Ritchie then inquired about the approximate cost of the
proposed project. Mr. Mason replied that the project would contain 200
dwelling units at a cost of approximately $20,000 per unit for a total cost
of 4 million dollars.
Commissioner Ritchie observed that it should be possible to design
an attractive project within those projected cost figures; and, while he
recognized that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", he stated that he
did not intend to support the project in any way unless the Commission
were to be given the right to review and act on final building plans for
the development.
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, stated that the city's
■
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -4- April 25, 1974
cooperative agreement with the Redevelopment Agency provides that final
building plans must be approved if the design is in conformity with an
approved redevelopment plan. However, he felt that it might be possible
for the staff of the Department of City Planning to review the final plans
for the proposed project and to report to the Commission as to their
conformance with the criteria established in the adopted redevelopment
plan.
Commissioner Porter stated that it was her understanding that the
proposed project would be designed not by the Redevelopment Agency but
by the architect hired by the Presbyterian Church in Chinatown, subject
to the approval of the Redevelopment Agency; and she asked if that under-
standing were correct.
Mr. Mason replied in the affirmative, indicating that the Redevel-
opment Agency is forbidden by law from constructing buildings in redevel-
opment project areas. He stated that the subject properties would be con-
veyed to the Presbyterian Church in Chinatown and to the Lyman Gee Associa-
tion who would divide responsibility for design and construction of the
project. He confirmed, however, that the design of the project would have
to be acceptable to the Redevelopment Agency. He remarked that the design
of the proposed project would be somewhat complicated by the fact that
housing was being proposed on a site where residential construction is
rather expensive. He noted that the Commission had previously prepared
a preliminary plan for the project; and he likened that preliminary plan
to a "work order" to the Redevelopment Agency to prepare a final plan in
accordance with the guidelines established in the preliminary plan. That
final plan was now before the Commission for consideration; and the respon-
sibility of the Commission was to review the final plan in terms of its
conformity with the preliminary plan and to report its findings to the
Board of Supervisors. He remarked that the question of design was not
before the Commission at the present time; however, he indicated that the
Redevelopment Agency would continue to work with the staff of the Depart-
ment of City Planning as final details are resolved.
President Newman asked Lambert Choy, representative of the Presbyterian
Church In Chinatown, if his organization would be willing to submit final
building plans to the staff of the Department of City Planning for review
and comment. Mr. Choy replied that he and his associates would work with
both the Redevelopment Agency and the Department of City Planning. He
assured the Commission that he would have nothing to do with the construc-
tion of a "monstrosity".
Commissioner Fleishhacker stated that It was apparent that one member
of the Commission wished to have an opportunity to act on final building
plans for the project before the project is constructed. However, he felt
that the real question was whether the Commission wished to have an opportu-
nity to act on the final building plans; and, for the record, he indicated
that he did not wish to be given that power.
'
■
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -5- April 25, 1974
Commissioner Rueda felt that the question was not whether the
Commission wished to act on the final building plans but whether the
Commission had any right to act on the final plans.
President Newman stated that the city's corporation agreement with
the Redevelopment Agency does not give the Commission that right.
Commissioner Ritchie stated that he expected that amenities would be
sacrificed in order to assure completion of the project; and, whether the
other members of the Commission agreed with him or not, he felt that the
Commission should review final plans for the project in terras of design,
placement of buildings, appearance, preservation of views and view corridors,
character, access points and entrances, and light blockages. He remarked
that the Commission has had very limited power to control the design of
redevelopment projects; and he personally felt that most buildings which
have been constructed in redevelopment project areas have been very ugly
and unattractive additions to the city. Therefore, as a matter of principle,
he intended to vote for disapproval of the proposed project if the Commission
would have no authority to review and act on final building plans for the
development.
The Director recommended that the proposed redevelopment plan for the
Stockton/Sacramento Redevelopment Project be approved as in conformity with
the Master Plan.
President Newman remarked that the comments which had been made earlier
by Mr. Choy would be reflected in the minutes of the Commission meeting;
and he indicated that he hoped that the sponsors of the proposed project
would cooperate with the Department of City Planning in every way possible.
Mr. Choy again confirmed that he and his associates did intend to
cooperate with the staff of the Department of City Planning; and, in addi-
tion, he stated that they would be willing to invite individual members of
the Commission to participate in meetings where decisions regarding the
proposed project are to be made. He stated that he did not necessarily
disagree with Commissioner Ritchie's reference to most buildings which have
been constructed in redevelopment project areas in San Francisco as "mon-
strosities".
Commissioner Porter observed that the Redevelopment Agency has built
"monstrosities" in an era when monstrosities are being built all over the
city; however, she wondered if there were any pseudo-legal way in which the
Commission and the Redevelopment Agency could reach agreement which would
enable the Department of City Planning and the City Planning Commission to
review final plans for the proposed project.
Mr. Mason stated that design review is vested in the Redevelopment
Agency because the agency is responsible for the sale of the property and
can make design requirements a part of the contract of sale. However, he
• . ,.
•■ .'.
'
1
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -6- April 25, 1974
stated that he had taken note of concerns which had been expressed by
members of the Commission; and he indicated that the Redevelopment Agency
would try to be as cooperative as possible.
After further discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Fleishhacker
and seconded by Commissioner Porter that the Redevelopment Plan be approved,
Commissioner Porter stated that she had seconded the motion with the hope
that the Redevelopment Agency would continue to cooperate with the Depart-
ment of City Planning as final plans are prepared; and she asked if the
Redevelopment Agency could agree to continue the cooperation. Mr. Mason
replied that he, as an individual, could agree to continue to work closely
with the Department of City Planning.
Commissioner Ritchie made the following statement: "I will vote
against this project because the Planning Commission of San Francisco is
prohibited from having any future right of approval of the final design
and appearance of this project within the Redevelopment boundaries. Verbal
statements of its ultimate attractiveness or that it will be an appealing
addition to the city are not sufficient for me, as I have seen the result
of these types of verbal statements. I refuse to support the birth of a
project of this type unless I am able to confirm to my satisfaction that
the project will be an attractive addition to the city. Therefore, I must
vote against this project".
President Newman observed that the Commission has never been given the
right to exercise architectural review over any project.
When the question was called, the Commission voted 5-1 to adopt
Resolution No. 7176 and to recommend to the Board of Supervisors and the
Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco that the
proposed redevelopment plan titled Stockton/Sacramento Redevelopment Plan,
and marked Exhibit A in the Department City Planning files, be approved.
Commissioners Farrell, Fleishhacker, Newman, Porter, and Rueda voted "Aye";
Commissioner Ritchie voted "No".
The meeting was adjourned at 4:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynn E. Pio
Secretary
yjlM
• SAN FRANCISCO
...CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of the Regular meeting held Thursday, May 2, 1974.
The City Planning Commission met pursuant to notice on Thursday, May 2,
1974, at 2:00 p.m. in the meeting room at 100 Larkin Street.
PRESENT: Walter S. Newman, President; Mrs. Charles B. Porter, Vice-
President; John C. Farrell, Mortimer Fleishhacker, Thomas J.
Mellon, and John Ritchie, members of the City Planning Com-
mission.
ABSENT: Hector E. Rueda, member of the City Planning Commission.
The staff of the Department of City Planning was represented by Allan B.
Jacobs, Director of Planning; George A. Williams, Assistant Director - Plans and
Programs; R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director - Implementation (Zoning Adminis-
trator); Peter Groat, Planner IV - Urban System Analyst; James White, Planner IV;
Samual Jung, Planner IV; Daniel Sullivan, Planner IV (Zoning); Marie Zeller,
Planner III - Administrative; Robert Meyers, Planner II; Moira So, Planner II;
and Lynn E. Pio, Secretary.
Larry Liebert represented the San Francisco Chronicle; Dan Borsuk represented
the San Francisco Progress; and Mr. Flynn represented the San Francisco Examiner.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved by Commissioner Mellon, seconded by Commissioner Porter, and
carried unanimously that the minutes of the meetings of March 28 and April 11,
1974, be approved as submitted.
CURRENT MATTERS
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, reported that lack of funds may require
cancellation of two Commission meetings prior to June 30 unless a supplemental
appropriation for $150.00 is submitted and approved by the Mayor and the Board of
Supervisors. After discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Porter, seconded by
Commissioner Mellon and carried unanimously that Resolution No. 7177 be adopted
requesting approval of a supplemental appropriation for the necessary funds.
The Director informed the Commission that the Northern California Chapter
of the American Institute of Planners had given the Department of City Planning
an award of Merit for the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Comprehensive
Plan.
The Director advised the Plan Implementation Committee (Commissioners
Fleishhacker, Porter, Rueda) of a Special Meeting scheduled for next Wednesday,
May 8, at 12:00 noon to review the Inner-Sunset rezoning request.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 2 - MAY 2, 1974
The Director reminded the City-wide Comprehensive Plans Committee (Commissioners
Newman, Mellon, Ritchie) of the regular meeting scheduled next Thursday, May 9, at
12:00 noon.
The Director informed the Commission that the Board of Supervisors, at its
meeting on Monday, had put over for two weeks final passage of the moratorium
ordinance on condominium conversions. Further consideration is being given to
the possibility of raising the 25-unit exception to the moratorium to 100 units.
The Director announced that the Commission had been served with a notice of
commencement of a court action concerning the Environmental Impact Report and
Conditional Use for expansion of Saint Mary's Hospital. Such a notice is required
by State law, and we do not as yet have any further papers concerning the suit.
James White, Planner IV, reported on the current status of the Northwest
Corridor (Geary Corridor), Transit Study and responded to questions which were
raised by members of the Commission.
PRESENTATION OF 1973 HOUSING INVENTORY REPORT.
Peter Groat, Planner IV - Urban Systems Analyst, presented and summarized
the report and responded to questions raised by members of the Commission.
R74.21 - JUSTIN HERMAN PLAZA EXTENSION, ASSESSOR'S BLOCKS 202 AND 203.
Samuel Jung, Planner IV, reported on this matter as follows:
"The Director of Property has forwarded the proposal for the
construction of Phase 2 of Ferry Park, now known as Justin Herman
Plaza, with the project area E-l (Golden Gateway) and adjoining land
owned by the City, State and the Redevelopment Agency.
"The land which will provide for Phase 2 construction is situated
between the Alcoa Plaza, The Embarcadero and Clay and Washington
Streets. The property is now used principally for the Clay-Washing-
ton on and off ramps for The Embarcadero Freeway. Davis Street, now
closed to through traffic, will remain closed to vehicular activity.
The Department of Public Works has a sewage pumping station on the
southwest corner of Drumm and Washington. The use of land around the
station will be granted by a Public Works permit. The parcels owned by
the Redevelopment Agency will be deeded to the City for recreation and
park purposes. The ownership of the State property will remain with
the State of California. The use of the State lands for park purposes
has been covered by a previously executed cooperative agreement.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 3 - MAY 2, 1974
"The proposal is in conformity with the Northern Waterfront
and the Recreation and Open Space elements of the Master Plan.
However, this determination should not preclude the use of the
State-owned land situated between the Clay Street on-ramp and the
northerly right-of-way line of Clay Street for street purposes to
realign vehicular access to The Embarcadero upon demolition of The
Embarcadero Freeway."
Commissioner Porter remarked that the Recreation and Park Department had
been reluctant to assume responsibility for maintenance of the Alcoa Plaza; and
she wondered if the responsibility for maintenance of the Justin Herman Plaza
extension would be thrust upon the Recreation and Park Department over its objec-
tions, also.
Edward Ong, representing the Redevelopment Agency, stated that the proposal
for extension of the plaza had been presented to the General Manager of the
Recreation and Park Department and to the Recreation and Park Commission; and no
objection had been expressed in either case.
Commissioner Ritchie remarked that the areas under the freeway ramps will
be in perpetual shade; and he asked what type of landscaping would be installed
in those areas. Mr. Ong replied that the areas beneath the ramps would be
developed with walkways and landscaped with a hardy ground cover.
Commissioner Mellon observed that the areas beneath the freeway ramps may
be used by street artists.
The Director recommended that the proposal to use the subject properties
for park purposes be approved as in conformity with the Master Plan provided
that such use of the land does not preclude the future use of the land for
street purposes along a narrow strip of land parallel and adjacent to the
northerly right-of-way line of Clay Street extending from Davis Street to
the Embarcadero.
After further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Mellon, seconded
by Commissioner Ritchie, and carried unanimously that the Director be authorized
to report that the proposal for use of the subject properties for park purposes
is in conformity with the Master Plan provided that the use of the land for park
purposes does not preclude the future use of the land for street purposes along
the narrow strip of land parallel and adjacent to the northerly right-of-way
line of Clay Street extending from Davis Street to the Embarcadero.
At 2:55 p.m. President Newman announced that the meeting was recessed. The
members of the Commission then proceeded to Room 282, City Hall, and reconvened
at 3:00 p.m. for hearing of the remainder of the agenda.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 4 - MAY 2, 1974
3;00 P.M. - Room 282, Zoning Hearing
CU74.9 - 2109 BROADWAY, SOUTH LINE, 109.5 FEET VEST OF
BUCHANAN STREET
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO CONVERT THE EXISTING
ONE-FAMILY DWELLING TO A TWO-FAMILY DWELLING WITH-
OUT PROVIDING ONE OFF-STREET PARKING SPACE
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director - Implementation (Zoning Administrator),
referred to land use and zoning maps to describe the subject property and then
proceeded to read the following statement:
"This case has been calendared before the City Planning Commission
based upon statements made in the application on file, under the
provisions of Section 166 of the Planning Code entitled Special
Provisions for Conditional Uses Regarding Parking in Conversion
of Dxrellings, which, under certain conditions, permits conversion
without the usual 1:1 parking otherwise required.
"Section 166 establishes the following requirements for eligibility
for consideration as a conditional use, 'the proposed conversion shall:
'1. Occur in the course of renovation of the building;
" '2. Result in a total number of dwelling units not exceeding
the density that would be permitted for a lot of the same
size in an R-2 district, as described in Section 128 of
this code, excluding transitional use situations and ex-
cluding the provisions of Section 203.2(e) and (f); and
" '3. Be for a property on which the off-street parking otherwise
required for the number of dwelling units sought cannot be
provided without major structural change, or alterations to
the building or lot that would destroy the architectural
integrity of the building or significant landscaping.
"The applicants have stated the purpose of this requested conditional
use authorization is to convert an existing dwelling to a two-unit
dwelling and maintain that 'we are eligible for this conditional
use as this conversion will occur in the renovation and preserva-
tion of this dwelling.'
"According to an inspection carried out on August 8, 1966 by BBI,
this building was already a two-unit building with the basement
used for storage, converted without permit from a single-unit
dwelling after 1964 when a building permit was filed indicating
the structure as a single unit.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 5 - MAY 2, 1974
"Field inspections of the interior of the building by the staff on
April 29 and 30, 1974 confirmed the conversion of the main three
floors of the building had occurred and, further, since 1966, a
third dwelling unit had been added in the basement. The conditional
use application is clearly in error as the conversion of the building
from one to three units has already been accomplished. The first
requirement for eligibility is therefore not met.
"The applicants further state the conversion to two units will not
exceed the R-2 standards as the lot contains 3,712 square feet.
Whilt true for two units, the presently existing three units would
exceed the R-2 density provisions which require 1500 square feet
for each dwelling unit, or 4500 square feet total. Because of this,
the second requirement for eligibility is not met.
"The third requirement for eligibility is also subject to question
though it would appear to be unnecessary to go into the matter,
unless the Commission wishes me to do so. It is clear the applica-
tion is not eligible for consideration under Section 166 as a
conditional use. The City Attorney also concurs in this conclusion.
"I should note that these eligibility requirements do not apply in
the variance procedure, and that might well be the appropriate
approach if the applicants wish to pursue their problem further.
"In view of the facts outlined, the Director recommends the case be
dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction, and that the application be
returned to the applicants. The filing fee, however, should be
retained as costs have been incurred because of error on the part
of the applicants."
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, confirmed that his recommendation
was that the case be dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction and that the applica-
tion be returned to the applicant; however, as an alternative, he suggested
that the Commission might wish to inquire of the applicant if he would be
willing to withdraw the application.
Commissioner Ritchie remarked that the building occupying the subject
property is a beautiful structure; and he had understood that the purpose of
the Interim Residential Zoning Controls was to help to preserve such buildings.
Under the circumstances, it was difficult for him to comprehend why a techni-
cality should make it impossible for the Commission to consider the applicant's
proposal; and he asked if there were any other way that the applicant's project
could be approved.
The Director stated that the Commission could not consider the applicant's
request for legalization of two dwelling units since a total of three dwelling
units already exist in the building; however, the applicant could seek to have
the dwelling units legalized through variance procedures.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 6 - MAY 2, 1974
Commissioner Ritchie observed that the beautiful building occupying the
property might be demolished unless the dwelling units could be legalized; and
he very much hoped that such an event would not come to pass.
Commissioner Porter noted that the Commission had been considering zoning
in the Pacific Heights neighborhood for the past two years; and the remarked that
she had often expressed the opinion that there are probably many illegal units
in the neighborhood. She noted that the subject property had been zoned R-5
when the building was converted into three units; and she pointed out that R-5
zoning would have permitted conversion to a sizable number of units if it had
been possible to provide the required number of off-street parking spaces on the
site.
Mr. Steele remarked that the Building Code would probably have required
interior alterations aimed at fire protection if four floors of occupancy were
to have been legalized; and he felt that such construction might have been
prohibitively expensive.
Richard A. Olness, the applicant, indicated that he was not prepared to
withdraw the application. He stated that he had been quite surprised on the
previous day when the staff of the Department of City Planning had requested
him to withdraw the application; and he advised the Commission that he continued
to be of the opinion that his application met all three requirements for eligi-
bility for consideration as a conditional use. While it might be better to approach
the situation from the variance standpoint, his primary objective was to save the
house; and the method used to achieve that objective was not his main concern.
However, if he were to withdraw the conditional use application at the present
time, he feaxed that he might lose that avenue of approach to the matter. He
felt that certain architectural considerations might not be feasible under variance
procedures; and, for that reason, he believed that the best thing to do would be to
take the Conditional Use application under advisement for 30 days in order to
give him an opportunity to decide on the best approach to the problem.
Commissioner Fleishhacker asked if the applicant had observed any inaccuracies
in the statement which had been made by Mr. Steele. Mr. Olness replied in the
affirmative but indicated that explanation of those points would constitute an
argument in behalf of his position that his application was eligible for consid-
eration by the Commission.
Commissioner Porter, noting that no complaints had been filed concerning the
conversion of the subject building, asked the applicant why he had decided to
file the conditional use application. Mr. Olness replied that he wished the units
to be legal; and it seemed to him that the Interim Residential Controls offered
a solution to that problem as well as a means of preserving the existing building.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 7 - MAY 2, 1974
President Newman stated that he was sympathetic with the applicant; however,
since both the City Attorney's office and the staff of the Department of City
Planning had advised the Commission that the Commission does not have jurisdiction
over the application, the Commission could not proceed with the hearing. He
suggested that the applicant follow the advice given by the staff and that he
file a variance application.
Mr. Olness stated that he disagreed with the City Attorney's office and the
staff of the Department of City Planning regarding the Commission's jurisdiction
of the application. As indicated by Mr. Steele, there were three requirements
which the application would have to meet in order for it to be properly before the
Commission; and he felt that his application met all three of those requirements.
The first requirement was that the proposed conversion should occur in the course
of renovation of the building. He stated that no major alterations had taken
place in the building; and, as a result, the building is still easily usable as
a single-family residence. The fact that the building is being shared by two
families does not mean that the conversion has been completed; and, therefore,
the proposed conversion would in fact occur in the course of renovation of the
building. The second requirement was that the proposed conversion should result
in a total number of dwelling units not exceeding the density that would be permitte'.
for a lot of the same size in an R-2 district; and he felt that that requirement,
also, was met by his application. He stated that his building has only one legal
dwelling unit at the present time; and the purpose of the application was to obtain
legalization for a second dwelling unit in the building. If continued occupancy
of the servants quarters in the building by a student would not be legal, he would
be willing to abandon that occupancy. The third requirement was that off-street
parking for the additional dwelling unit could not be provided without major
structural change or alterations to the building or lot which would destroy
the architectural integrity of the building or significant landscaping; and he
believed that his application met that requirement, also, since creation of an
off-street parking space would destroy the facade of a building which was con-
structed in 1896 without a garage. He indicated that his architect was present
in the audience and could speak further on that issue.
President Newman stated that he failed to understand why the applicant was
so hesitant about seeking a variance from the Zoning Administrator in view of
the fact that the Commission had been advised that it had no jurisdiction over
the Conditional Use Application. Mr. Olness stated that he had originally been
advised by the staff that his proposal would qualify for conditional use authori-
zation; and he had been encouraged along those lines. He stated that he was
somewhat afraid that the variance application would be disapproved if the condi-
tional use application were to be withdrawn at the present time.
Commissioner Ritchie stated that it was obvious that the applicant wished to
conform with the law; and he felt that it was lamentable that the Commission was
being advised that it does not have the power to hear an application which had
been filed in good faith with the encouragement of the staff of the Department of
City Planning. It seemed to him that that was a poor way to do business.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 8 - MAY 2, 1974
Commissioner Porter stated that the purpose of the Interim Residential
Zoning Controls was to preserve older residential buildings such as the one
presently under consideration; and she observed that the subject building is
probably not the only one in Pacific Heights which has illegal units. She felt
that the second unit should be legalized and that consideration should be given
to the applicant's request for exemption from the off-street parking requirement;
and she asked for the Director's recommendation as to the best way for the
Commission to proceed.
The Director stated that whether the subject application is dismissed or
withdrawn, the applicant would have a legal right to reapply in the future; and,
if the illegal dwelling units were abated in the interim, the Commission would
legally be in a position to handle the matter.
Commissioner Ritchie asked if legalization of the second dwelling unit
through variance procedures would result in a requirement for installation of a
garage in the building. The Director replied that the Charter places responsi-
bility for such a determination in the Zoning Administrator and in the Board
of Permit Appeals on appeal from the Zoning Administrator's decision.
President Newman emphasized that withdrawal of the Conditional Use at the
present time would not prejudice the applicant's right to resubmit the application
at a later time if the request for a variance should be denied.
Commissioner Porter suggested that the applicant's filing fee should be
returned to him or applied to the variance application since it was apparent
that there had been a great deal of misunderstanding involved in the situation.
Mr. Olness asked if the Commission was talcing the position that his arguments
relative to the eligibility of his application were not valid. President Newnan
replied that the Commission was bound by the opinion of the City Attorney's
office and the staff of the Department of City Planning that it did not have
jurisdiction over the application.
Mr. Olness then indicated that he would be willing to withdraw the applica-
tion. After further discussion the Commission voted unanimously to adopt Resolu-
tion No. 7178 and to accept withdrawal of the application.
CU74.11 - 3800 GEARY BOULEVARD AND 375 SECOND AVENUE
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR A PARKING LOT TO BE
DEVELOPED AS PART OF A RETAIL TIRE AND ACCESSORY
STORE; IN AN R-3 DISTRICT
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director - Implementation (Zoning Administrator),
referred to land use and zoning maps to describe the subject property which is a
rectangular parcel with a 25-foot frontage on Second Avenue and a maximum depth
of 120 feet for a total area of 2,392.7 square feet. The property is presently
occupied by a metal building containing an automobile repair and storage facility.
The applicant was requesting permission to use the subject lot for open parking
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 9 - MAY 2, 1974
for twelve automobiles as part of the proposed development of the corner, . .-■
commercially-zoned, lot with a retail tire and accessory store. A total of 28
parking spaces were being proposed for the full development of the site; and the
proposal would also include ten service bays, storage and a sales room.
Mr. Gruenberg, representing the applicant, advised the Commission that
the subject property and the corner lot were at one time a single lot. The
subject lot, which is zoned for residential use, has been used commercially
since 1959 and is now occupied by an old and unattractive pre-fabricated building.
He felt that the proposed use of the property as a parking lot with landscaping
would improve the appearance of the lot. He stated that plans called for construc-
tion of a wall along the north property line to protect the adjacent neighbors;
and a considerable amount of landscaping would be installed on the site.
President Newman announced that the members of the Commission had taken a
field trip to the subject property.
No one else was present to speak in favor of the application.
George Theobald, 317 Second Avenue, stated that he was not opposed to the
application; however, he wondered if any consideration would be given to sound-
proofing the proposed operation.
Mr. Shragge, also representing the applicant, stated that the service bays
would be set back fifty feet from Second Avenue and would be located between
fifty and 75 feet from the north property line. He also indicated that most of
the activity would be focused toward Geary Boulevard.
Mrs. Theobald remarked that the property is presently used for automobile
sales and repairs; and she indicated that that use had generated a great deal of
traffic in the area, especially since the automobiles have been driven around
the block for testing purposes. She hoped that the proposed use would generate
less traffic; and, in addition, if any pneumatic machines were to be used on
the site, she hoped that they could be sound-proofed.
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, observed that the Commission could
establish a condition requiring that the doors to the service bays be closed
when power tools are being used.
Commissioner Farrell asked about the hours of operation of the proposed
facility. Mr. Shragge replied that the facility would probably be open from 8:00
a.m. until 8:00 p.m.
Mrs. Theobald asked if the applicant intended to use signs and balloons on
the site. The Director replied that use of such devices is governed by the City's
sign ordinance.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 10 - MAY 2, 1974
Mr, Steele recommended that the application be approved subject to seven
specific conditions which were contained in a draft resolution which he had
prepared for consideration by the Commission. After summarizing the conditions,
he recommended that the draft resolution be adopted.
President Newman asked if the conditions which had been recommended by
Mr. Steele would be acceptable to the applicant. Mr. Gruenberg replied in the
affirmative.
After further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Porter, seconded by
Commissioner Ritchie, and carried unanimously that the draft resolution be
adopted as Resolution No. 7179 and that the application be approved subject to
the conditions which had been recommended by Mr. Steele.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynn E. Pio
Secretary
sfilm
—SAN FRANCISCO
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
-^Minutes of the Regular Meeting held Thursday, May 9, 1974.
The City Planning Commission met parsuant to notice on Thursday, May 9,
1974, at 2:15 p.m. in the meeting room at 100 Larkin Street.
PRESENT: Walter S. Newman, President; Mrs. Charles B. Porter,
Vice-President; John C. Farrell, Mortimer Fleishhacker,
Thomas J. Mellon, John Ritchie, and Hector E. Rueda,
members of the City Planning Commission.
ABSENT: None.
The staff of the Department of City Planning was represented by Allan B.
Jacobs, Director of Planning; R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director-Implementa-
tion (Zoning Administrator); George A. Williams, Assistant Director-Plans and
Programs; Richard Gamble, Planner IV; Selina Bendix, Environmental Review
Officer; and Lynn E. Pio, Secretary.
Larry Liebert represented the San Francisco Chronicle; Dan Borsuk represented
the San Francisco Progress; and Mr. Flynn represented the San Francisco
Examiner.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved by Commissioner Fleishhacker, seconded by Commissioner
Mellon, and carried unanimously that the minutes of the meeting of April 18,
1974, be approved subject to the correction of two clerical errors.
CURRENT MATTERS
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, advised the Commission that he
will be in Chicago next week to attend the annual conference of the American
Society of Planning Officials.
The Director noted that a letter had been received from Mayor Alioto re-
questing that the Commission set in motion the machinery to bring about
modification of the Civic Center Element of the Master Plan so that construction
of a performing arts theater en Marshall Square could be considered . The
Director indicated that other aspects of the Civic Center Plan need up-dating,
also; and he stated that the staff will formulate proposals for revision of the
plan to be submitted to the Commission for consideration in July. He remarked
that the Civic Center Master Plan currently designates the Marshall Square
site for development with a new courts building; and he felt that the Master
Plan should be use -oriented instead of being so specific.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -2- MAY 9, 1974
Commissionff Mellon remarked that construction of a performing arts
center on the Mar, shall Square site seems eminent whereas other potential
uses of the site seem more remote; and, under the circumstances, he felt that
it might be better for the Civic Center Master Plan to recommend use of the
site specifically for the performing arts center rather than to designate the
site for a general type use. The Director stated that the matter would be
considered by the staff during its review of the document.
President Newman read a letter which had been received from Mary Louise
Strong, President of the Friends of the Library, urging that Marshall Square be
reserved as the site for a new Public Library building.
The Director invited the members of the Commission to join members of the
staff in a picnic at his home on Sunday, June 2 , in honor of Samuel Jung on
his retirement.
The Director continued his report with the following comments:
"The Commission requested the department to seek advice
from the City Attorney relative to 'spot-zoning' on the reclassifi-
cation request from R-3 to C-2 for the Phillipine News at 2045
Lawton Street. The case was taken under advisement until
receipt of the advice from the City Attorney. Y/e now have the
City Attorney's reply which states that he believes that the
staff correctly outlined the basic legal considerations involved
in the case. I previously indicated that approval of the request
for the change of zone would be 'spot-zoning' of questionable
legality; and it would seem clear that the City Attorney concurs .
In view of this, I would suggest that the Commission calendar
the matter for further consideration during its next regular zoning
hearing on June 6." The Commission concurred with the Director's
suggestion and requested that the matter be returned to its agenda on June 6.
The Director advised the Neighborhood Plans Committee (Commissioners
Rueda, Fleishhacker, Ritchie) of a meeting scheduled next Thursday, May 16,
at 12:30 p.m.
George Williams, Assistant Director-Plans and Programs, summarized a
report recently published by the Mayor's Office of Community Development
entitled "New Directions for Programming Community Development and Housing."
President Newman inquired if funds requested by the Recreation and Park
Commission for preparation cf a Master Plan for Golden Gate Park had been
deleted from their budget. Mr. Williams replied in the affirmative but indicated
that their staff is proceeding to develop a work program for the project and will
seek other sources of funding.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -3- MAY 9, 1974
Commissioner Fleishhacker, noting that the Commission had considered
a Conditional Use Application at its last meeting in which the applicant had
apparently misconstrued certain facts in his application, advised the Commission
that all applicants sign an affidavit under penalty of perjury declaring that
statements contained in their applications are true and correct to the best of
their knowledge; and he felt that the staff should make it clear to applicants
that their statements are being made under oath. The other members of the
Commission agreed.
R74.9 - CANDLESTICK COVE LAND DONATION
Richard Gamble, Planner IV, reported on this matter as follows:
"The Director of Property has forwarded an offer of donation
of land for park use to verify conformity with the Master Plan.
"The Herbst Foundation, which is owner of Lot 1 in Block 4794
and all of Block 4805 has offered to donate the property to the City
for park use. The property, between Shafter and Underwood, northerly
of Fitch Street, abuts the proposed boundary of the future State Park
at Candlestick Cove, hence the property could constitute a desirable
addition to the park. As a city park, however, the property is not in
a desirable location. It is in an area designated for industrial use
in the Plan for Residence and the South Bayshore Plan.
"The proposed location of the Hunters Point Freeway is -south-
east of Fitch Street, and if it is ever built, it would sever these
parcels from the shoreline park. The probability of this freeway's
construction has decreased since the route was determined; however,
some form of shoreline thoroughfare should be considered a distinct
possibility.
"It may be desirable to realign the route onto these properties
rather than sever them from the shoreline, and perhaps to exchange
part or all of the property for other properties better located for park
use. The City should therefore require that it be given flexibility
in the disposition and utilization of the properties. Also, the City
should be free to donate the property to the State without voter
approval. The Herbst Foundation has indicated willingness to allow
the City to utilize or dispose of the property without restriction. In
addition, the Foundation will donate $10,000 to clean up and improve
the property.
"The Eastern Shoreline Plan of the Comprehensive Plan for
Recreation and Open Space calls for creation of the shoreline park
and expansion and improvement of Bayview Park as a contiguous
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -4- MAY 9, 1974
recreational complex. Addition of this property or its equivalent
at Bayview Park would help achieve this goal."
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, recommended that acceptance of
the donation of the property be approved as in conformity with the Master Plan
provided that the terms for such donation permit the city to transfer the land
to the State and/or to dispose of it for other public or private use if the State
declines to accept. He further recommended that any proceeds from disposition
of the property be utilized to purchase other city park land in the South Bay-
shore district.
Commissioner Ritchie stated that he owns property in the area which the
State is negotiating to purchase for the proposed State park; and, for that
reason, he intended to abstain from voting on this matter because of a possible
conflict of interest.
After discussion it was moved by Comraissioner Fleishhacker, seconded by
Commissioner Rueda, and carried unanimously that the Director be authorized
to report that the acceptance of the donation of Lot 1, Block 4794 , and all of
Block 4805 from the Herbst Foundation is in conformity with the Master Plan,
provided that the terms for such donation permit the city to transfer the land
to the State and/or to dispose of it for other public or private use if the State
declines to accept. It was further recommended that any proceeds from dis-
position of the property be utilized to purchase other city park land in the
South Bayshore district. Commissioner Ritchie abstained from voting.
R118.74.7 - DWIGHT STREET VIEWS SUBDIVISION
Richard Gamble, Planner IV, reported on this matter as follows:
"The Director of Public Works has forwarded a tentative
map of the above subdivision for Master Plan conformity review.
The subject property is located opposite V/oodrow Wilson high
school between Hamilton Street and the remaining 10 ft. of
Holyoke Street (The bulk of this street was abandoned in 1965).
"The area is zoned R-l and is designated for low density
development in the Comprehensive Plan for Residence . Lot
dimensions are in conformity with the zoning regulations .
"Lot 32, a large parcel fronting on Karen Court, will
probably be resubdivided later. The 76-ft. lot depth will
permit six 35-ft. wide lots with areas of 2,660 sq. ft. These
would conform to the lot size requirements for new subdivisions."
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -5- MAY 9 , 1974
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, stated that the subdivision map
conforms with zoning provisions; and he indicated that it would further
residential development as prescribed in the Plan for Residence. Therefore,
he recommended that the subdivision map be approved as in conformity with
the Master Plan.
After discussion it was moved by Commissioner Fleishhacker, seconded
by Commissioner Mellon and carried unanimously that the Director be authorized
to report that the subdivision of a portion of Block 6116, as shown on the map
of Dwight Street Views, is in conformity with the Master Plan.
At 2:50 p.m. President Newman announced that the meeting was recessed.
Members of the Commission then proceeded to Room 282, City Hall, where
they were joined by Commissioner Porter, and reconvened at 3:00 p.m. for
hearing of the remainder of the agenda.
3:00 p.m. - Room 282 , City Hall
EE74 .62 - REPORT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OFFICER AND
CONTINUATION PUBLIC HEARING ON THE DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND STATEMENT
FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO WASTEWATER MASTER
PLAN.
Selina Bendix, Environmental Review Officer, summarized the draft
Environmental Impact Report and statement for the San Francisco Waste-
water Master Plan and the Master Plan Implementation Program No. 1,
the North Point Transporter Project and reported on community concerns
which had been expressed during a public hearing which she had held
jointly with the Envrionmental Protection Agency. She then responded
to questions which were raised by members of the Commission.
The Commission then received comments from members of the audience
including Barry Bunshoft, Attorney for the Tribune Publishing Company;
George Duesdiecker, representing the Save Lake Merced Association; Jim
Ross, a resident of Oakland; Helen Burke, representing the San Francisco
Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club; Michael McGill, representing the San Francisco
Planning and Urban Renewal Association; and Peter Hebron, representing Friends
of the Earth.
Dr. Bendix then responded to comments which had been made by members
of the audience.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -6- MAY 9 , 1974
After discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Mellon, seconded by
Commissioner Fleishhacker, and carried unanimously that Resolution No. 7180
be adopted with the following resolves:
"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission does
hereby find that the final Environmental Impact Report, dated May 9, 1974
concerning the San Francisco Wastewater Master Plan, and the San Francisco
Wastewater Master Plan, Implementation Program I, North Point Transport
Project, is adequate, accurate, and objective, and does hereby certify the
completion of said report in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act and the State Guidelines;
"AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Commission in certifying the
completion of said report does hereby find that the project as proposed will
have a significant short-term effect on the environment, and will not have
a significant long-term effect on the environment;
"AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That it is the opinion of the City Planning
Commission that the Wastewater Master Plan will have a benefical long-term
effect upon the environment."
The meeting was adjourned at 4:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
Lynn E. Pio
Secretary
6 #10
SAN FRANCISCO
to/Tf
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of the Regular Meeting held Thursday, May 16, 1974.
The City Planning Commission met pursuant to notice on Thursday, May 16,
1974, at 1:00 p.m. at 100 Larkin Street.
PRESENT: Mrs. Charles B. Porter, Vice-President; John C. Farrell,
Mortimer Fleishhacker, Thomas J. Mellon, John Ritchie, and
Hector E. Rueda, members of the City Planning Commission.
ABSENT: Walter S. Newman, President.
The staff of the Department of City Planning was represented by Edward
I. Murphy, Assistant Director of Planning; George A. Williams, Assistant
Director - Plans and Programs; R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director -
Implementation (Zoning Administrator); Robert Passmore, Planner V-Zoning;
Peter Svirsky, Planner V-Zoning; Selina Bendix, Environmental Review Officer;
Ronald Jonash, City Planning Coordinator; Richard Gamble, Planner IV; Daniel
Sullivan, Planner IV (Zoning); Alec Bash, Planner III; William Duchek, Plan-
ner III; Wilbert Hardee, Planner III; Allan Billingsley, Planner II; Nathaniel
Taylor, Planner II; Gary Craft, Planner I; and Lynn E. Pio, Secretary.
Larry Liebert represented the San Francisco Chronicle; and Dan Borsuk
represented the San Francisco Progress.
1:00 p.m. - Field Trip
Members of the Commission and staff departed from 100 Larkin Street
at 1:00 p.m. to take a field trip to properties in the Inner-Sunset District
which were to be the subject of the Zoning applications to be considered at
3:00 p.m.
2:15 p.m. - 100 Larkin Street
Edward I Murphy, Acting Director of Planning, reported that the Board
of Supervisors, acting on Monday, had voted to amend the Condominium Mora-
torium Ordinance by changing the moratorium time from six months to four
months. Apartment buildings containing 25 or more dwelling units will be
subject to the moratorium.
The Acting Director indicated that the Board of Supervisors had also
reviewed the Environmental Impact Report for the Stockton/Sacramento Re-
development Project and had approved the Redevelopment Plan for that project.
The Acting Director stated that the Board had also approved the desig-
nation of the Inner-Richmond area as a residential rehabilitation area.
The Acting Director advised the Commission that the Planning, Housing
and Development Committee of the Board of Supervisors will meet next Tuesday
...'■. t9ri
. T no . ....! .■ >n . .• 3tn ■..■'.•
a b • .■'.■"•■■. ' "
■■'■■■■ ■ ' . I
. ' ' -'...■"-, ■ :
■' i ' ■ _ . ■ - ■ • . ,
i$: ' ' ' •:» 2' . if -
'•'.-. ■'.,•■•«■,.. •' . (s-j:
o ■ .-■'..
■ as i it . . -
■' .. ■ [}.' ' ' ' • . .
■ ■ - ■ ■ ■ •:
'
3 ' - .■•-.''';
I
■ 38 ..." ■ . .
: rta '-..;. ssJ . ■ ' 0 .q 0
■-.':. ,.. ' ■ • ' ■ . •■ . ••
i ■■. v. .-...■.-■ ., ■■:.■.
'" •'■.'• v. :'
.
/-;•'-■'' •
' ' '■ ''•'■'." : •'■ ''•' • • ' ' ' v. - '
- ':' "■ i ttsi
'
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -2- May 16, 1974
afternoon to consider the Nob Hill rezoning, the Pacific Heights rezoning,
the Turk-Arguello rezoning, and designation of the Mish House and the Quinn
House as Landmarks.
Mr. Murphy then continued his report with the following comments:
"As you may recall, the department is now undertaking work
leading to the development of a Commerce and Industry Element of the
City's Comprehensive Plan. We will be discussing the Work Program
for this Element with the Comprehensive Plans Committee in three weeks,
and; we anticipate that, once completed, the work will provide the
basis for objectives and policies which can be presented to the Com-
mission for public hearings and Commission's action in mid-1975. As
part of our preliminary work for this element, we have prepared a
request for consultant proposals which covers parts of the work scope
where we feel their ideas and assistance is needed. We have approx-
imately $50,000 of HUD 701 Funds which we can use for this purpose.
We are planning to send the request to about ten local consultant
firms with a strong background in work of this kind. A final decision
on consultant services would be made in mid -June."
At this point in the proceedings, Commissioners Farrell and Mellon
arrived in the meeting room and assumed their seats at the Commission table.
William Duchek, Planner III, gave a slide presentation which illustrated
how enforcement of the city's Parapet Ordinance might result in the dis-
figurement of many of the city's buildings. Mr. Murphy then recommended
adoption of a draft resolution which contained the following resolves:
"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, The Planning Commission endorses all
efforts and programs for the abatement of hazards posed by parapets
and building appendages;
"AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, The City Planning Commission states
its desire to retain, through repair, reinforcement, or replacement,
those parapets and building appendages which are of importance to the
special character of San Francisco;
"AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, The City Planning Commission
authorizes the staff of the Department of City Planning to take
appropriate actions to encourage preservation of such building elements,
especially through cooperative action with the enforcing agency, the
Bureau of Building Inspection."
Commissioner Porter asked if the Parapet Ordinance requires removal of
parapets and other ornamentation which might be a hazard. Mr. Duchek replied
in the negative, indicating that the ordinance requires only that any hazards
be abated. He remarked, however, that many owners may find it cheaper to
remove hazardous ornamentation rather than to re-enforce it or re-construct It.
■■■ -; ■ ■" ; , -. "■" . ■■ ' ' '
. ■ : '", '"..: :'; '.. EIB : - K ■'■ ! ■:. ■ ' ■ ■
■..■'■■■■ - - j b ..••'■ •' ■ ■'-'' ■--
. . . ' '■' isJ
smmoo ■ h . rfSiw tt nlJnos [qt!
-' ?<M ... ■■•; , | ; • .. : ■. •< : . ■••■■' ■ . .'
. ' ' ' •' • . ; . '.;..,;
■ ■ • u ■ ' - l I I
. bivo s bs • ■■ ' i ■ ■ ■ l&q >%
. :•■'-■..■■■■.■ Ho
...■■■'.-.. . . ■ . , . . -;
' . .-,.''■■ jiae tarfa
3 •.. ■ :' -. ■ '■ .. : '
■ . •: ' l e 3 1 - -■
'•■■■■.>;.'..•...
".:.'■ ■ . ■
'■' .■■:''•..•.■■.. b ...
■;■ ■ : - ' ! at ,. i
»i tIJ :-.-. . .' ■ .. | 9bi'Ia s » ......
■..'. - . : . rO '.'. • . . ■
! '• . . : j ' - ■ . . . ■ . ,
; ... : ;.■•.■'
:•..." .:•-: - I -
-•'■'■' ■■ '■.•'•
» -■ ■ ■ ' rI4 ,:•'.• ■ . . .: "■ . ■ • ..
..,.;..• ■■■..-■■'.■;. • ■ . ....
•': ' ' ' ■•' ' ■ •' .'v : E • .. -
.' ■ • ' ' I
" ' : •' '
• '• ■• .',■'■ )Q! ... • :,•■
' ' ' ■ .;v, — :-...
'■ ■■■ - I • I tW . ■■■ " .-. ■■..,- ■
•- ■ . .... . • bliti
. - - . ' • •' ' ■ : ' - • - ' u
' : • ■' • • ■■ ■ '■ ■ ■ ■■ ■■ . iria
■''■:■' •"■••■,-.. . . . ..-..,,. :.
■.'■■'■'.• . . - • , . ■
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -3- May 16, 1974
Commissioner Porter felt that large-scale removal of parapets and
other ornamentation would render San Francisco a very ugly city.
Commissioner Ritchie recalled that Honolulu, which used to have a lot
of coconut trees, had a standing offer of fifty dollars during the 1930' s
to anyone who was hit by a falling coconut; and he remarked that no one
had ever collected the money. He stated that he was very concerned about
the removal of cornices and parapets from buildings in San Francisco; and
he remarked that the result would be similar to removing the eyebrows from
human beings. Chinatown and the Fairmont Hotel offer two prime examples
of how removal of building ornamentation could affect the appearance of
the city; and he felt that the citizens of the city should be on the alert
as to the type of damage which could be done. He believed that building
owners being faced with orders from the Bureau of Building Inspection to
abate hazards would tend to remove dangerous ornamentation rather than to
strengthen or replace it because of the cost involved; and he felt that the
results would severely and negatively affect the visual appearance of the
city. Under the circumstances, he felt that the City Planning Commission
should be in a position to have some control over the situation.
After further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Fleishhacker and
seconded by Commissioner Rueda that the draft resolution be adopted.
Commissioner Mellon advised the Commission that the matter might be
somewhat academic since the Finance Committee of the Board of Supervisors
had recommended deletion of funds from the budget which were to have been
used to hire people to enforce the Parapet Ordinance. He stated that the
Bureau of Building Inspection was sympathetic to the concerns which had been
expressed by members of the Commission; and he indicated that the people who
will be hired if the jobs are funded will readily be able to determine
whether it would be practical to re -enforce hazardous ornamentation in any
given instance.
When the question was called, the Commission voted unanimously to
adopt the draft resolution as City Planning Commission Resolution No. 7181.
Mr. Murphy recommended that the Commission's Regular Meeting scheduled
for next Thursday, May 23, be cancelled. It was moved by Commissioner Mellon,
seconded by Commissioner Fleishhacker, and carried unanimously that the
meeting be cancelled.
R74.118.9 - CLAY -HILL 60 UNIT CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION AT 1230, 1250
and 1260 CLAY STREET.
Richard Gamble, Planner IV, reported on this matter as follows:
"The Director of Public Works has forwarded the subject map for
Master Plan conformity review.
. . . . . ■ . . .
.. ' •■ v£ri : ■: i ■_ , '.'."■■ .....:..• -
... ; '- ^ • . i ':.• ■-,-■ ha ■■
i " ,'■. I -'• ' tec " ' ■ '•.":,■ ■
:'■"■•' ■ ' i
xq ,: ,: ' •■■' ". ' ■ - •
- ' : ' : " '• .'
M ■ : , ■ '. . . - F; :....-..-
..•■"•■"•■ lo u • . i ■ . ' - • :
ti .'-:•■- ... . ■ • II ' •■
■• ' ' ! ■ '> '■•-.,■•-
■'■•.. "■ irfj •;.: ' . , .=. •■ ■ ':
•■ | ' ,.'■-.'. . . .-.
;.i ■■■■-.■■--, :
Ffl ' .• . a .'-.•. - ■ .■
. ■ b ad n .. ■'.■' ... ..■•."
■ :. ■ , ' \lm "■ 30 lintnb '',.-•.
■'•■■'■''■ ' : Jtfljji ( • I
■ ' ■' ' ' ■ ■ • > I '■,- ■ ■■■
; ■ " ' ■■..■■ '■- ■ ■ \ ■ ■ . : ■ ■
.. ■• ' ..:: ■ 80 '-'- '■'■/.. . . .. . ' ,'■
1 '•■■ ■'■ ■; ■ ■..: - /'. I ■■• . iO . ■ .
:-■-:■' ■ ' ' ■ 96-111
n ■ . .: ■.-,-.■_:,■•.
. ■ ■
1 " ; : ■ ''
■••'•■■■ '■ >'■ ' ' ■ i\ ■ • :
:i' '- ' ; ' •' ' ■ ' ' ■" '■" ' ' ....'.■.:''■
taoll<& ■ Mioiaain :■: , ■ ■■■ ...■..• .
■■■-■ ■/■■•■'■ : . ' .
.... ( ■ . . •■• . ■."'■.■
'"■' ■•' • ' ■ ' ■ ' 11s ■ • '
. . ...■••■,..•
' Sfl ...= ■•-:,■■. , . . I
....
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -4- May 16, 1974
"Clayhlll Condominium consists of three buildings at 1230, 1250,
and 1260 Clay Street between Taylor and Jones Street. The buildings,
constructed before the one-to-one parking requirement came into effect,
have 60 units and up to 57 parking stalls. (The usability of some
stalls is doubtful). The two westerly buildings contain 24 one-bedroom
units each, the easterly building has 12 one-bedroom units, but almost
50 per cent larger in floor area.
"Legislation establishing a moratorium on condominium conversions
is currently before the Board of Supervisors. At issue is how few units
must a condominium have to be exempt from the moratorium. Twenty-five
units were initially proposed, but the real estate industry wants to
draw the line at 100. In any case, Clayhill would be exempted because
it would predate the existence of the moratorium.
"A spokesman for the subdivider informs us that prices for the
small units will be $32,000-$35,000 and $50,000-$53,000 for the large
units. The rents are currently $200-$225 in the 6mall ones and $250-
$300 in the large ones. The subdividers are optimistic that they can
retain many of the current renters. They have a commitment for 80 per
cent 30-year loans, and hope to make other financing arrangements for
90 per cent loans. With this financing they think many renters could
become owners with very small, if any, increases in housing costs. The
income tax advantages of home ownership would compensate for the addi-
tional costs. Purchasers will be free to arrange their own financing
if they wish.
"While very favorable arrangements may be possible for many of the
tenants, others will certainly be forced out. Long-time tenants, re-
tirees on limited incomes and young and old alike who don't have savings
are not potential purchasers. The subdivider indicates a willingness
to help solve these problem cases. As owner of seven other buildings,
he has some relocation resources of his own. Also, some potential buyers
plan to be absentee owners and will make those units available for rent
to existing tenants. The projected sales period is one year and tenants
will be given 90 days notice of eviction if sales or rental arrangements
cannot be worked out. Because of the small scale of this conversion a
long sales period is not practical, but due to the small scale, it should
be possible to give each tenant enough personal consideration to minimize
displacement problems.
"The Comprehensive Plan for Residence calls for measures to
minimize displacement and to improve rehousing services and to provide
opportunities for citizen involvement. To further these objectives
several conditions to Planning Commission approval are recommended."
Gilmar J. Anselmo and William Fuller, the developers, were present to
answer any questions which might be raised by members of the Commission.
, t ,. _. . , ..'. ! I fl
■ ■ ■■ :,■:.■ -4.3J . ..■.'- ■ ■ ■ ' ' .
. . ■.■/. ,-. ■ . . ■ ' . . \ ■ * '- ■ ■•■
I • ■ n»?J . ■ . . ■ ■ ■ .
. t i . . • I . ,:-. al ; ■ ■ . ' * 9V ' |
■.- . ~ . ■•" i ..-.•:;,■ ■;.; .'..:.■.■..
-.. n . - to - ■•'- "SI ' '• ' *' '; ; ,
BJ ••-'■•.. U .■ ' li '• . ■
■- , . '■..■■■■.-<-- a ,.-.■■ i : . . ■ A a
I . ■■ • C
' ■..--''■<• . .
"-." ■ ■■'- •■•'..•..- ■ ■•'•
s ■■'■.'■ ■: aa;. ■■ I. ■ • ■
. • ' 1 C , ■ , -i • ■ •
'" J a • ■..;':■ I y!.: ■ -
.;.. " : .u ' .-.. '. ./ ■ : ■ . IT-. . ■
' • - - ''-•■.■ '; : '-' ' " '
■-'■'-.'..-■•■•-'.:■•
. -.- " " " ' '
;. ■.....--..-.... ... ' ,-i I
■''-''■■■ . ' . .. bj ■ . . . .. ' '
■■■•■..■'•• IT- ! ■ '
...''. '-■.■•■.,. f*i 0 i BO, - - ; '
'''■'.'''■■ • ' • •-'■' . •".■- . ■ '
' - ' ' •"•■• .- ■ - .....;,.: . ■ • folcj
■■ ■ ■ . ■ . ■■ i bi :.., i ,-..:■ •:. .
-" ' " 7 . • . i . . . | • ■'. '.,.
- • ■ . •-...... .....' . • I . .
" • . Dsoa IX Bias. &M ■ ■ ......' .-. / ..:■.'■ ■ i
■ ' •■'.,• • .-';■ -■_..-'., ■..-£■ ■ ' .
>: 3 ■.- '"'..:■''.-.. ■■ •.' ■• . . ■ ■■
■ ' ' ' • ;.•.'■•■..'.■■• ! ! . Li ■ .■ '
• ■ s - =■ •;:'.-.'.■,■■ ■•-. -
- ;- "."..:'■.:•/:. i
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -5- May 16, 1974
Commissioner Fleishhacker, noting that the case report which had been
sent to members of the Commission had stated that the subdividers were
optimistic that many renters could become owners with very small, If any,
increase in housing cost; and he asked if that statement were correct,
Mr. Fuller replied that the staff's interpretation of his remarks was not
entirely correct. He anticipated that monthly payments for the smaller
units would be approximately $241.00 based on a 907. loan; and, while that
rate might be slightly higher than the rental fees now being paid, he
indicated that ownership would include an off-street parking space whereas
renters are presently required to pay approximately $30.00 for parking
spaces in the buildings.
Commissioner Fleishhacker then asked if the monthly payment of $241.00
would cover maintenance costs and taxes. Mr. Fuller replied in the negative
and estimated that an additional $40.00 per month would be required for
maintenance and that an additional $80.00 per month would be required for
taxes. After Commissioner Fleishhacker observed that the approximate monthly
cost of a $30,000 apartment would actually be $361.00, Mr. Fuller emphasized
that taxes and loan payments would be tax deductible. Thus, the next monthly
cost would actually be considerably less than $361.00.
Commissioner Fleishhacker remarked that it was still obvious that the
condominium subdivision would, in fact, increase the cost of living in the
buildings.
Mr. Fuller stated that some people have lived in the buildings for 20
years; and he pointed out that they would now be well on their way to owner-
ship if they had been given an opportunity to buy their units initially. He
stated that ownership opportunities are badly needed in downtown San Francisco,
Commissioner Fleishhacker then asked when the buildings were purchased
and if they were purchased with condominium conversion in mind. Mr. Anselmo
replied that he had purchased the buildings two or three months ago with a
condominium subdivision in mind.
Commissioner Ritchie felt that the monthly loan payments would actually
be somewhat higher than those assumed by Mr. Fuller because of the present
market situation.
No one else was present in the audience to be heard on this matter.
Mr. Murphy recommended that the tentative subdivision map be approved
as in conformity with the Master Plan providing that the applicant would
be willing to undertake the following:
A. To furnish favorable financing so that renters will be able to
purchase units with the resulting housing cost comparable to January 1974
rent levels;
■■■■■•.. ■ •
j ' .. . '
■ - ■ . . . •' ■ ■ '■'■' i ■'-.''■:■"'■ ;'.' n
' ■ . i • ' 3Bj ' ■ '• - '
.--..' ..-..'"'-"■ tq: -. ■ . . rfa '■•■'
. ■ q ;;. ;■: : - .-
y ■ ■ ' ".'..'■'.•• •
t '•'-,•■ ti -.. ■ '.. ; '
•' -
■
- . - ■•.'■'-
. . . ■ . ■ . ' ■
. - . ■ ■•
. • : .. - ■• • ■ '■ '
'■.'■''.•- ■'''•' ' •"■
ioin 3xsn . - ■'.■-.
' ■■■■:.' ■ ■ I
''..'■'•'.' ' ' ' '
' - BJyj ■ -.'-■'■ '
-'■■. ' - ' :
SB J
■''■•' ' <■'■■■...■■
■
' - • Q [J ■■ ' . ' o
■ '■.-- '■'■'■ n »
• ' ■ ■' ' ;4;s • •
1
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -6- May 16, 1974
B. To defer any evictions until the latter half of the sales period
so as to allow maximum time to arrange re-housing, and
C. To immediately initiate discussions with tenants or a tenant group
to assure their participation in the transition to condominium ownership.
Commissioner Porter asked if the conditions which had been recommended
by Mr. Murphy would be acceptable to the applicant. Mr. Anselmo replied in
the affirmative.
Commissioner Fleishhacker remarked that the first condition made little
sense unless one were to give a very wide definition to the word "comparable";
and he suggested that the condition be re-worded as follows: "To furnish
favorable financing so that renters will be able to purchase units with net
resulting housing cost comparable to January 1974 rent levels, if possible".
Other members of the Commission agreed that those changes should be made in
the condition.
Mr. Fuller stated that they wished to retain as many of the present
tenants as possible; and, for that reason, they would gladly comply with
the third condition which had been recommended by Mr. Murphy. In reply to
a question raised by Commissioner Mellon as to the number of people would
had indicated an interest in purchasing the units which they presently occupy,
he stated that he was forbidden by law from discussing the matter with his
tenants at this time; however, he indicated that a couple of the tenants had
talked to their building manager and had indicated an interest in purchase
of their units.
After further discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Fleishhacker
and seconded by Commissioner Ritchie that the Acting Director's recommenda-
tion, as modified, be approved.
Commissioner Rueda stated that he would vote against the motion because
he was personally opposed to the condominium conversion of older apartment
buildings which may require considerable expenditures for maintenance and
up-keep.
When the question was called the Commission voted 5-1 to act in accord-
ance with the Acting Director's recommendation, as revised. Commissioners
Farrell, Fleishhacker, Mellon, Porter, and Ritchie voted "Aye". Commissioner
Rueda voted "No".
R73.57A - MUNI TRANSFORMER STATION IN AN OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ON
LAGUNA HONDA HOSPITAL PROPERTY.
Richard Gamble, Planner IV, reported on this matter as follows:
"The Director of Property submitted six transformer substation
sites for Master Plan conformity review in October 1973. Three of these
were of non-controversial nature and were approved by you on March 7,
■■
. , • ' ' % '■' i .€■ I
1 I <-. ! g -
00*
'.■•.. tc ■■■■.--,: ■ laoA
■■ : ..-:.-.■ _ In
■
■ r. ' I
■ • .- . : ■
. ■■ 3 I ■
•' ' '"•'■..'" ' '
•■■■■.'■ ■'.■ ■''.';-..■;■ I in "; 1 1 ''.:'■■'
;•-■'■ .... :' -r iJEJc ■■■■ ■ ■ ■ '• '.
;' ; ■ I tau ■-.■•"■■:■•■■ ■ ■■ . : ''•' ' • ■ ■
,' . ha igq "ii, . i ■ .. ;■ ■ . ■' • . •.-'.•.■
, niisL ad bipods \ • •. ■ I . ■ ■ .
3 .• ibui
• .■'. ' .-.: - : ■ -.■>...■.•••■
. w .-. r _nj : - ■ ■]. ■;■■ ■■■■.
■ bJ . - , ,qc q lo '
.■ - .* ■■■■■■■■' ■. : .';■ ■ ■-
••■■''.-;.>■•
. s , : ■■ 3r -
■'.'.•• .• . . .'■ ,,--■'
. 8.j [:lJtw - . i .' ! "■ ;:'' ' >&.£
■ ,: . -• '•• ■•'•'.■;. ■■'{'
- ■•.'■■ 'Ci flJ ■" ■ ' '"
• - :" -
- . ■ ■ ! ' ■
■-. I: 'V; ••',. S . ■ ';. : •: ■ }V. ■: • • ■ . •■ I . . ."..'./'.••■' :-
..if ■•:<, ■••' ■ '" ;'.''■ ■■•>■ ' " \ . tij
■• ■■. : E i . • »v . . a I o3
'"' '•■ ' '' '' - /' . -.; ' " • '
... SR v •' .;. :. ; ■- '■■ ••'. ■ ' " '.. '
"■ ' '••'-',''. -: ' * ■' '' '' ' • .'- i •' r : -
- -■ '3 19 ■ , ■ ■■ ■ . ■■ ; . .. ,' ■ .
■ ~:V ■•" "■ •/'■'■"',Y,v, 50J 3 / !Qi id^bH
ban
-■■■>■ :•■''-.''' '-■■■■:. ''
' ■"' '-'"■■' ■ .'■',:/ ' - ~' 's~ -J'"' ■ ■ :':>.:" ■ ■■ . ■..■ ''
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -7- May 16, 1974
1974 (Judah at 32nd Ave., Taraval at 32nd Ave. and Sutter at Fillmore).
The remaining three were in open space zones and are undergoing sub-
stantial study and modification to minimize their effect upon the open
space areas. The Laguna Honda site studies are complete; the remaining
two require detailed design consideration and will come to the Commission
at a later date.
"The Twin Peaks Tunnel runs beneath the hospital grounds. Trans-
former facilities at West Portal and Church Street stations serve the
tunnel's extremities, but a facility is required to serve the central
portion of the tunnel. The midpoint of this service area is roughly
below Twin Peaks Boulevard. Here the ground surface is 500 feet above
the tunnel and would necessitate drilling an access shaft estimated to
cost half a million dollars.
"Muni's initial proposal was to locate its facility adjacent to
the existing ventilation shaft in a hollow at the northeast corner of
the Laguna Honda hospital site. Several alternates in the immediate
vicinity were considered, and the most satisfactory site adjoins the
hospital's power plant and laundry facilities. This location is on the
edge of the open space district, in an unwooded area, and is as far
removed from residential development and the visible portions of the
open space area as possible. Section 290 of the Planning Code provides
that 'the height and bulk of buildings and structures (in OS districts)
shall be determined in accordance with the objectives, principles and
policies of the Master Plan, and no building or structure or addition
shall be permitted unless in conformity with the Master Plan'.
"The Plan for Recreation and Open Space speaks to the problem of
locating supporting facilities in open space in the jurisdiction of
agencies other than the Recreation and Park Department and sets forth
the following criteria: (1) demonstration of the necessity of the facil-
ity to provide the public service of the agency, (2) proof that alternate
sites have been given serious consideration and (3) an assessment of
the effects of the facility on the site and surrounding neighborhood.
"The provision of these transformer substations is an essential
part of Muni's power improvement program, one aspect of the modernization
of the City's transit system which is assigned 'first priority' in the
Plan for Transportation. The site finally selected is one of five studied,
The least expensive site, right at the ventilation shaft, was rejected
in order to minimize intrusion in the open space. The most expensive
alternate, involving drilling a new shaft above the tunnel's midpoint,
had the added disadvantage of being in the Twin Peaks open space. At
the site which has been selected the environmental impact will be minimal;
the hospital's laundry and power facilities produce more noise, and the
facility will not be visible from the surrounding neighborhood.
' J J
■':. "
.... .. .. -;; *...,. ;, agtqu -■ \ ' |s • ' -'• ' -"- \ '"' \
..: . ■ . ; : '-■■■ >•'•-"'". s ti ij > ! ■--.•■' ''";"'' ; ,''!"
:. -:-r"' .: .-.;-
' •- '-• ••-■■ "•''..'■ ;' ■- ■ •?■ ■ " " '
■■■ V' ■•-•"■ '■■-•'-:
■ -.•■ " ,••"■■- ■' ' ' '" ' '
. . •..■■--■ -" .•■' :
■■■■,-. a! inuo I ."■' ! tq " ■ \ .■■■'■ '
■ s • _sad ssbfisv •;•■", v '""';'■■' »« ! ".'' • ■ ■'■........'■ i ■'•■ ■- ■'■ ■
" - fguirsr-i i K-.: ' 'Jji--r: /'■ r :'r '•■ ''•:<..' \ .','• '■""'" i ' ■....' ' :---!'- ;';
.7Y\ lait' OO'ft-a vs »s3 • :: : fin ';■ jJ -V--'' ' ' . '■ ■ ■ ■■ ' ■ " "-
i !•'' .'. i r asi .-. ,- : i lis g.l : >S ' .■:''". ' '. ; ., " * : •■ r '■
.;:- aaj n- ailJt: ..; s .;.' ; .< s >.1 • 'ac n '
'■■ - sp oa 'Sfej 2 . •• - .-"• t :■'' . . , .'... ■ . a I ! ■'.•; . . -• ;$ ■ -. .:■-. ' ' ■■- : -
.-.■•■• r-arf3 " 'i "'" : xi "' >f- '.. '"' ■ /''\ •■ "-",' •; v, ..- ! • : ■
■- ,'. rf?. Eif ;.:",■"•'•■ '•■''- ■-;;" | '}.■ : ■ '' '.'• '. .*; •■■■ ■'■ ■ ': ■•
_,.i;.:' i :..• fl.OJ : I 0O|' Sl'flT- :;. ■■■■■ Li .- ' ■'. ! ■' . ■, ••-''
.:■;'■' i«|» &i ■-.••,■.•,■." ;,v---" . ' bsbocs •■■ fis.fi ' .■'■ ' ;>. . . l •..■-.■'
... • • . - •' ' ►' r ;;; .v'V •'■'■'''■•' : ; '''i:' ;. ' ,'',;!/.'.' ■'"';' '' . ••
iv ;• ;■■; -;; i • ■ .■ t- ^' ;: ; >€S '' "■ ''' > - ., .';.■ ?g • ' •• " -
I ■ ■ ' ". ' ":■';■ ■ •■ --'iv- • • ''■ ' ' | • ' .. ,. ': ';. ■ '
bri ' 3%J ,•;, ; .;.-'*" "— • •'•";'r''' : ; ;. ■ ' , '" ?« ■ ■:=•••■■' . • ' ' ■■'■■
■. '■ -: • ■■■■ - .':. ■ . ■ ':-'' .: gn^.l ! ~:~ ■' ' ' . ■ : ■ ■• !-. ■ • • :
' .• ■ , 'm 'J- .. ia'fiM - ■ ■ ' '*■ "^ ■ '- i i ' .. .- . ■ •■ ■•
.. 3 . .',..• q, ... r! ;•. I . ' * "-i: ■ ,. '• ■ ..'■..'■.
XO floi.^bJtb :.V • ■) - .. ■: .■ ■ . . . . X< .: ... '. :. .; .
*;"':~: : : • ■•'• '-■■ ■■[' : ■"' tea&s 'sfrf* ■>..•■■''-. '■' ■' ■ i ; ■' , ';':''.,;. :. -■■ vh-- "•'•"'
. ■■ •:. ■■':-•.■■'■ '. ;- ,'"■• '•'•'." •' •■'•.•-■ iS .'."■ •■•' - ■ ... ;,.-.'." ■ >.;■[-.- I., :'
•• ,_ o,.:3r-9ma3v^5iS- as I •' ,; olivt-'isb. ... ,' V- . t ..'."',.':;-..,. •• , rf-i . '■■
"' ■' .. .' ■ '' ! :' '*'■ •'' •'■•'., ' ' - j ■ . ■ ■ ,■
"..;■■ J9j : ■■ ■ ■ ik r Bfjg ,< ; ■■/-, l^-rfsv .'' " s "
. ; tsrifitqir.s ■ ■■ n., sri'J • -: ■ t£{j r- ii'lrii'
,. ..;';■; ^ • ■.:.. . ; .- , ; ,,. ":■'!<• rfjj ' ,j v \
■ ■ . "; ,'" - ■■' - ' ■ ■:M " ''■ '': ' ! '" K' -'■ "' ' ;'' /'-.
' .V ''''.' . '■'■'' :'-- .,''.'.'•■•" bi ':/'■ -'■: \ I "i . .'' '■' . ;. .' ..
• ' "' ,' ■;./ ■;■:■ . ■■'•-■■■' -■■ - bj£u< ■'.'■' ■■ 'V'"', - a . :'
■ ■' f • ■ .'■■-■': : ' sq
E II .. .• ; ' - :■'■■
;■■ .
; . .: . I :'
■ i s • . ■ •'■■'• • - .
■ ■ ■ ■' : .:• :-y ■"■'■■ '■' '
. • . . .-. : ■ : ■ >i
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -8- May 16, 1974
"While the substation cannot readilly be entirely removed from
the open space area, its incursion can be ameliorated by surrounding
the building with a dense landscape screening similar to the surround-
ing vegetation and by painting the building a dull green color."
Stan Davis, representing the Municipal Railway, stated that he was
present to answer any questions which might be raised by members of the
Commission.
No one else was present in the audience to be heard on this matter.
Mr. Murphy recommended that the proposed transfer of jurisdiction of
the property be approved as in conformity with the Master Plan provided that
the structure be painted a dull green color and surrounded with a dense
landscape screening similar to the wooded area of the open-space.
After discussion it was moved by Commissioner Fleishhacker, seconded
by Commissioner Ritchie, and carried unanimously that the Acting Director
be authorized to report that transfer of jurisdiction of a 50 by 100 foot
plot on Laguna Honda hospital grounds, as shown on PUC D-2169, is in con-
formity with the Master Plan provided that the structure be painted a dull
green color and surrounded with a dense landscape screening similar to the
wooded area of the open space.
EE74.82 - APPEAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
CITY PLANNING RELATIVE TO A PROPOSAL FOR TWENTY-TWO
DWELLING UNITS IN FOUR BUILDINGS AT 120 CORWIN STREET.
Wilbert Hardee, Planner III, described the proposed project and
explained the reasons for the staff's finding that the proposed project
could not have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that
finding, the staff had issued a negative declaration on April 19, 1974,
and that negative declaration had been appealed.
The Commission then heard from members of the audience who wished to
speak on this matter including Jude Laspa, 4426 19th Street; Robert Davis,
415 Douglas Street; Sue Hestor, President of the Eureka Valley Promotion
Association; Bert Schwarzschild, 363 Douglas Street; George Lu, owner;
John Bunting, agent for the developer; Annette Clark, a resident of Seward
Street; and Harold Major, architect for the developer.
After discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Fleishhacker, seconded
by Commissioner Rueda, and carried 4-2 that Resolution No. 7182 be adopted
finding that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on
the environment and affirming the negative declaration issued by the Depart-
ment of City Planning. Commissioners Fleishhacker, Mellon, Porter, and
Rueda voted "Aye"; Commissioners Farrell and Ritchie voted "No".
" ' ' '■' ■ 92J . "! ■ " .. ' a
■••.: •..;'■ •' ■ '■ ■ -'." I . ..'■'•
i ■-- ■■■■-.-' . ., -'_■..■ ', ' ■■ bXJri rf :-d .;. c 9 .' ' -'"/ :- "\'; ;'
■'•',. ■ '•■■•..-■' tf ■ • ■,■■-'' ' ' '■ ■ ■' ■ '''■'
"- ■■■■ ' ■'• . " : '" ' . ■'
; .'•• S ' '■ '• > • '' '■' .-,.. " ' ■*""
; ■ ■ ■ ■" ■' > '
' ,'' •■. '. v ' : '". • ■■ •' ,..."•-•:• '■■
■ ■ 1 ■ . j tts.1 ' ■ • ■ ' ■'•■ '"'..''"".
: ■ .-r! . ■ • - .: ' ' . ' . '" "''• flu ri'scj ' • - '■
i . o; ■-.■ ;■•■<:, ■"'.' " ,A '."."'.'. '■ ;.-''"
• ■ ■ 8°^ .• ' ' ' : ■■...;'•'' '■■ - : ..'■-- ■ '
" • ■ X %6 Q •. ■"' '. • ', ' ' ' ' . ''.''' i ■■ " •'"*'.' ; ' ' ;
- ■ ; ',:■■■ • ■ \ ,. ■ '"-\ -: '' "' . ! .. :': ■ '
lltib '?, ' ■ j »d . .".;■;. ' ' ;'• \ vie ;j. :' ' "■■" -
■':■;•.•;. ■ .■ ■■• \ ■•,'■
'"-,'-. " ' :■•"• '' '': ', '-'"."• '■'■''''"' ■. a '" ••'.'" '•
>i - ; i'sj ■"■..•■■ , i ■■ • i; i v' .. i »•.' IJ
• ■' I J'/ ' '"'•■ '"■' ' i ■ : • , • '
'.''-■■- - ."■ w '"■■• , rl " •' • • ■ "■ -t ■ a ',''''
; J ■"'■■.' ' :. '■ ' '' .: ■;;- j '." '• ■ • " . i ■■■;; ■:' " '
"•'•. ' '■' •" • ' ^ " I ■ ''. '"
■ 90X13 •' r .. .. ■ ' ."'-'■'"'■■
-: r '.-.'''■.. . •'■-./'. : ■■'■'■ ■''■ ■ '" ■
• :': •' • •';.''" ":; ; ''' , "' '■ ' * ;- ' ' ■- ':i'.: -'
'■- -' ''; "'' '.' ' " ' . ' ' ' ■ "' ' ' ' ' "' '
'' ; . '■■ '■ •■ ■ . ■ •>._ • ' . . ■ ' :.:'.: <&[ '/■'■. i ■' i
: ' • ,. • ' ■■' ■ .. ' • ' • '• '• ■ • ■■'■ "• ■ • ■'"" ■
■ ■ : : '■ '•'■ ''". H\fl '■' f ■ ■ : : ■' ' ■ ■ '■' ■■■
.;' • ' - .' : /. ;■' i'x'i: ■ ';'.'. i '• ■ - '"':' &.V- - ■■ ■■,' •'••-.'-. •■'•■'• '■ ; M
IlINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -9- May 16, 1974
Vice-President Porter then asked the pleasure of the Commission
concerning a request which had been received from Sue Hestor, President of
the Eureka Valley Promotion Association, asking that the plans for the
proposed project be made the subject of a discretionary review by the
Commission. After discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Fleishhacker,
seconded by Commissioner Ritchie, and carried unanimously that Resolution
No. 7183 be adopted indicating the Commission's intention to conduct a
discretionary review of plans for the proposed buildings at 3:30 p.m. on
June 6, 1974.
ZM73.30 and ZM73.35 - INNER SUNSET RECLASSIFICATION: AREA GENERALLY
BOUNDED BY LINCOLN WAY, ELEVENTH AVENUE, LAWTON
STREET, LOCKSLEY AVENUE, FOURTH AVENUE, PARNASSUS
AVENUE, IRVING STREET AND POLYTECHNIC HIGH SCHOOL.
R-4 and R-3 to R-2; AND R-3 and R-2 TO R-l.
Vice-President Porter asked R. Spencer Steele to report on the zoning
matter.
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director - Implementation (Zoning Admin-
istrator) used land use and zoning maps to identify the subject property
which was the area generally known as the Inner Sunset bounded by Lincoln
Way, Eleventh Avenue, Lawton Street, Locksley Avenue, Fourth, Parnassus
Avenue, Irving Street and Polytechnic High School, only including the area
within those boundaries which was designated as "affected area" on the map.
Mr. Steele pointed out that the area under consideration in ZM73.35 was
comprised of 890 lots and approximately 36.34 acres; the area in ZM73.30
was comprised of 34 lots and was approximately 2.35 acres. Mr. Steele
pointed out that the existing uses in the subject area were primarily res-
idential with some scattered neighborhood stores, a few offices, board and
care facilities, and gas stations. Residential densities vary from single
and two-family units to medium and high density apartment buildings. In
general, densities are highest near Golden Gate Park and are lowest south
of Judah Street. None of the 890 lots, except for a few owned by the Univer-
sity, are presently vacant. As a consequence, new construction has proceeded
mainly with the demolition of existing units, replacing these with wood
frame buildings having two to three stories of housing over a garage.
Mr. Steele pointed out that institutional uses in the area include office
and classroom space for the U. C. Medical Center in former residences along
Fourth and Fifth Avenues between Judah and Kirkham Streets, and along Third
Avenue between Irving Street and Parnassus Avenue, a PG & E power sub-station
on Ninth Avenue between Judah and Kirkham Streets, the Laguna Honda Public
School located in the block bounded by Sixth and Seventh Avenues and Irving
and Judah Streets, two churches located on the northeast corner of Fifth
Avenue and Irving Street, and one on the west side of Seventh Avenue between
Irving and Judah Streets, and a community center located on the east side
of Tenth Avenue between Irving and Judah Street. A small strip of park is
located between Seventh and Locksley Avenues north of Warren Drive.
;:?" ■• ■ im '■ ? a r.. .,->. v y« '- • ; ■' • '■ ' '';'';': - ''■ '"- '■ ■ ■': ' ... ' ■ ■
■ "" ■; - ■■"■',.'■ .'". '.'. aH-f • •■ ■'■•- ■ 4-.t-,'. -; *•:-•>■. ■••• ■'■"■'• ■ " . '''•■' :';~ . "
•' "'•';."' '•'•-.•'.'':.'•■' ' ' ,:-''- "■ ' * ' "!':'- ' : '.' '"''■,' ■•■''"/
: ' ■ — ' •'. '. ■ '" • ■ ."•.■.' •■ -'- " '"'"- '.. '- ■':'■■ ■" ■■ ' ■ ■ ■■ ■' '■ '' ' '" ' /' •• ' • ,-f ' ''
' "" ''• .' ■' '"'''.,• ' • :'■ - -''■:•"■■' ' ■- Y;.t'" ■'■ ■■ ' '■'■ •'■'•- ' ' :-' /! '<"• ./ . .^ , ;
• ' 'rt'o' .q'OV 'is ■ ■■-■ ■ . ■ ' • ' '.■•'•.-■.
. jbml ' su '- ■'.', t/ii ;;''• -. mm .■■■.:.■•?• ra
• -" . ot s-3 bns e-a a : ' •■■-■,■
q •' ...!
■
■ ■ '':-; ■■''■:■ '•.; ' "' ■' '= • . . ■ ■" ■•' - ' ' '■ •
'"■' •."-■' ''■'• ';, ;: ■" ' ".'•• - ' ' ,!" '; ' ' '
: V- ; '■'■ :- ■' ','■'■' ■;:"■■' -'■'■■■■'■ i '• " ' ■' '' ' ' V ■ ' ■'
•:"' . -: ; " ' ' ■ - ■ ■■■ ...-.•': ' ' ' • :- ',;i ' ' ' ' . •
b ■ -. i - buJ ?ni ; ■ ■ • _■ i v.; ■ ;-. . .■ ■ • i • : ■ • • ' . '
' • .■ 3 -' ■ ' - ;:-, '' . . •- ".'■■; " ' " '■■' ■ ;" |o o -" .-. •
"• ..'....' ■ i ■ : ■ ■• ,,.••■' j ;
■ i ■ '.-_.. j . - . i . -. ■■ - h ••;': ".•-.•'■-' ; . ■ " •
'' j- ■■ ..'. • ' . .'.'•' • •"■' • - ' • ' •' • '• -'.>-;' '" • ' ■' \ . •;
• .- ats ... i ....... ;. . ' ■■■■■•'•'. i . ■*• ■■■■'■ ' ■'■ ■
_']' ' ;.,''.■• ;' , .v: • ;.. hi ri ■•.■.,• , "-03 :' "■" ' ' .
' . OX. ' • B,. E)8£ V ■ j ■;, . ,f,r , .;. :.-,„r' . I- ... ' ' .' ' " ■ ." ! fG -
"■■;■' - ■ .■' ■•:" '-. .{'.• -. ••'.■: ■■ . ■ ■■■ ■■ ■ " ; ,:- - • ' "; ' t; ■-■■
'- ' . ■" • :' '■ - :' ;•• ' ::'■'.' :' '•' ■•' ■ ' ' I " 33 I ■' ■' .
: ■ ' ' ■ ■ s ' • : • ' : ■ '
' : ' ' "■ ' -]■■ '-- .■; '; • ' • ■■••'•■ ■ :' ' ■ • •'■' " : ■ ■ -;;
' ' ' ■ r- '. . ■ ' ' , ■•.■■■--• l - ■" '■'■- ■ •-. '• ■'■''' "'■ ' '■'■'■ ' ' " '' '!' , ■' '. ■
■ ■.. '■'.]'■ '••?',. ./.-•,• " >•: '•••■ • : 'r ' ■ • ' -■' • ' • • ' - " i;r' ,' ; ' '' "."' •. ",;
.• •. -. '■• :•; l< ■• i son ?.•■'.-■. . :>. . - ;■!■■■■..
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -10- May 16, 1974
Mr. Steele pointed out that the application was not made relative to
intermediate districts, and that therefore the Commission could not consider
districts which fall between what existed and what was applied for.
Vice-President Porter asked if this had been pointed out to the applicant.
Mr. Steele responded that it was the wish of the applicants not to amend the
original application.
Mr. Steele pointed out that there were four things that the Commission
could do:
1. Approve the changes as requested;
2. Disapprove the changes as requested;
3. Approve a portion of the application and disapprove a portion
of the application; or
4. Consider the initiation of an application wherein the City Planning
Commission could consider intermediate districts.
Mr. Steele pointed out that a draft of a resolution had placed before
the Commission to consider the same application giving jurisdiction to the
Commission to consider intermediate uses, and suggested June 6, 4:00 p.m.
for the hearing.
Vice-President Porter said that the Commission felt deeply about the
time situation.
Commissioner Fleishhacker suggested that the Commission proceed with
the hearing.
Edwin Williams, 1465 Ninth Avenue, member of the Inner Sunset Action
Committee (ISAC), introduced the applicant's presentation by indicating that
his group had done a survey of the residents and that a study on housing had
been prepared by the University of California. He indicated that the Inner
Sunset had approximately 1000 residential structures of which one-half were
built before World War II. He pointed out that the homes were spacious and
of architectural interest. He said that 6000 people live in the area and that
that number was equal to the number who came into the area, but housing was
difficult for families with children; therefore, the district should retain
larger older units. The area was in close proximity to the park. He felt
that this was a critical point in the history of the area, the pressures
were great, but there was still time to retain family dwellings, and this
should be done if the city was interested in retaining families.
Robert J. LaPointe, from the Community Affairs Office for U. C. Medical
Center, and representing Chancellor Sooey and the University of California,
said that he endorsed the concept of rezoning but felt that it should be
reviewed on a block by block basis. He indicated that the University owns
property on Third and Fifth Avenues which are used as offices, and that it
was the University's hope that they could be restored. He indicated that the
Chancellor believed that rezoning would be very helpful.
. ■ .:.'.'■
. . sis - ■ ' ' , l ■;■' • : '•■ ■ • ' ■•' '•
ton b ■ (oiasJTKioD osoivtad; ■
■ k co3 . ' • ijtqqi < - I ■•-,■ '•■••''' ■ ".v . ■■ '■ • ' ■•• •'"'■ -' '
.■■;■•' '
' il'C
g nj . :'' . -,:■ ', ..:- ... - noi ■ -' : I • , vC noi ' • - ,;
.....' ib ". ■ . .•■'.-■• ; . . -;; ..■•;•■> • :
S A .'. i; I v,. v.. .■;,- ; . ' : :• .- • . ■;..'
■'• . .. '• :. fcvij • '•.••.- .- ■
..,>,-. S..-JI .,/ ' j ;' ... ._ .., ' . ■ •:
'•'■•■ '■■:'■ '■•'.''.■ ■ ■■: ■ . : '.: ■ ■
! :
i ' ■ " J ' i ' 'J ■ ' '■,;■■'. . , \ .
■
'■■■-■' .■ ' '. - . ... ' • , • ■• ;.
.-.,;■ .-.,-,;....'■,,
.: '.. '■ '.'■.. ' . ■ , ' .■'••'■ ' -•■ ..-■ ."., •..'•'' ' ...'..-. •' ■ i
..;;'.. : •' ■ ' ' •' ,. '■' •■•' T .•• ' '*--■; ■ >■'■■■ -: ■■.'■ l ,;vt • .' .."< : '' ■ ' '
• _-;.-:' ' I .■' ."' >J • ' .. . . "..•; i ■ ■;.'.; : ■• '. .-/ ■■■ ' ; • • • ■ . ■:■"
K>. -..:. '■ ".,- f.amoi - ..■•..■, n>r; , .>.■■ Jjo< . . . • . • "
"■•.•' ■• : ; : '■' "-■-'-': : ' •:•'■■ ■ . ' ' • . < ' .
;; \. ■ ■■''■ ■. ■ : .. . ■ . [ ■ ■ ■ .-■■ IflJU ; . .;■
" •• . . ;■.:':,■.. si ie ', srf; . ■ ,. >;; -:..,•.- [ ,: ' t . .;,.... lb
: .- ' ' ■ ■• ■ ■;■ ■■ ■. ,-■'■ > ■ ■! ■ '■ . - • , '■■ '•' "-• . '/:'' ' s ■■■■
'■'" ' '. ' •-'' ■■■ ; '■..•■' . '• .•'•'■' '■ .'■■'■>' ' ,■■■' ■' : ■ ■'■ ■■ ■' ■ i '-' • • ' '■ : '
' •, <•■■ ■■'-'■ : ,■'.,' ■■■'■■■■ ■ ' • ;V • ■ ■■• ., • . ■->:;■. '
"'■' ' " ' ' V i: ':-,:•) -"i •■':'• .'J-- ', '■ ■_■ taX | t - ;■ ;. •'.'
■ : ' • " '■■'..;.-' me ysooS t ..' .•
.'-'' ■:; ' ■:,: ■■■ ■":,'. ■ !-' ' ' - - /■ . ': •".:. ' " - '
• . - • \ »: ■' -" - I: b&$ ■: -.'-'■ :.■ ■•:■. : j.-''. ■■;. .: . -.. .-:. . ,.-, an ■ fs
• •' ' ' ■- ' • ■ ' .-' u a' •■ ' ; .. '->. .._ • . ■ ;,'-1. ' ■ . •..'/ ' ■' •:-. ■ •"•■ : l
' ' '" "- l-'-:- ■ ' s •■ i3tt! ■ ,{; ' ■ id ■' ,: ■ ■.•■ i - ' - a i . ■ . » . -, ■ ■
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -11- May 16, 1974
Vice-President Porter observed that the University has the right of
eminent domain which supersedes the power of the City Planning Commission.
She inquired of Mr. LaPointe as to whether he was saying that the blocks
to be rezoned would be retained as R-2 as per the ISAC request. Mr. LaPointe
responded that it was not the University's desire to change the zoning and
that it vjould work with the community.
Vice-President Porter commented that the community wanted R-2 not R-3,
and that trying to do logical rezoning in the area was difficult. She felt
that it was hard to believe that the University would retain their property
at R-2 density. To this, Mr. LaPointe responded that he could not make a
commitment for the University in the case of all residences.
Kathleen Courtney presented petitions which had been collected on a
block-by-block basis. She presented a map indicating the property owners
and the non-resident properties. She said that her group had sent letters
to every property owner and every resident in March. One month later they
had sent a letter to every property owner. From this information they had
pulled together a fact sheet. They had received 2,100 signatures and not
all of those were in yet.
Walter A. Susor, a property owner and resident of 1216 Second Avenue,
summarized the following prepared statement:
"When I moved to the Inner Sunset 5 years ago the neighborhood
was deteriorating badly. Since then, it has stabilized.. This has Come a-
bout through the ef ;orts of individual property omers and tenants tAo are
showing a renaissance of interest in the Inner Sunset as a neighborhood -
as our home. ISAC and several Ad Hoc groups have formed here in response
to the plight of the neighborhood in the 60's. The arrest of the neigh-
borhood decay of the 60' s was largely the result of the effort of indi-
viduals without assistance from the City, except for some technical and
material support for ISAC's 3 tree planting projects
"We are now asking for some help. We are asking you to grant us
zoning designations which are more commensurate with the existing struc-
tures and their existing use. Although the decay of the neighborhood
has been arrested, recovery is not complete by any means. There are
still many flats and homes being allowed to decay. Maintenance is
being deferred by owners who are discouraged from making repairs - largely
because of the excessive zoning. 'Why should I spend a lot of money
maintaining my flats when the city assessor tells me that my R-4 lot
has twice the value of the 2,600 sq. ft. flats on it?* 'Because it is
my house and I hope to stay here a long time and when I move I hope to
recover capital improvements cost in the selling price.1 But in the
meantime, the excessive zoning imposes a financial hardship on myself
and my neighbors.
"At my end of the neighborhood, Second Ave., and almost all of the
Inner Sunset the houses and flats were built about the time of the
,t • ■■ [■■ •::
.
■'■' '"' ■ " ',! "
.... ■■ ■ ■ 'cO .' " '
- Sj - ■?■ ■ . .-;'[ : ■ '
i ■ • on ■•'■'■-•
. ■ • ' . -': . . •
. . . •• j :■ . *■■ • "■' ' :■'■•.■•; i
■ '-.'• id "•
■■' ■ iX' I ■ I '.■
i>i
i ■
■;•■.•.'..' I • i . ' .. '■ . . ..
..-:■'■" E3t - ' I
..'•■-'■■ ■
. • ■ ■ ' ' ' ■ ■
. • "
; •
■ [SJ
|
• • ' - ':•■■'■'" "., v -.'■:.' - . ' ■••' '■ • ■ '...■
. ■-■•'' • ■■■-■■■.■■,' ''Qh ;.''■• • ' I ■ • ' f .•...•
■ : ; :"r: ■ •■"• : ' ': '■ ' ; ' ' ' ■•■ • • • •••■ '' ' '
'■■'■ ■■ :■':■ ■ ' ■ j'"§* , ' • :
:;' •"' • '■& '■■■ '■'■■ ;,■"'!■''■ ' •'"
•" ' ' '• ■*- • '' ' ' ' ' .' ' ■ ' • . , ■ *
' .. ■■'■■' '.:.'.:.-■ ■ .■■ ; '. '■' j. a. ■■ ■ •' asri
.;•■'■■ :;i £'J3 • .'"■■' ' ' ■..-.'. ..... ■•'.•• ;v . ,.',.'.•
■:- ■ ■"■ "••; a / ' • .. ? ." . . ;S - &'• "- ' ! '"' v ./'
■ i . :' ■■ : ■ '. ; 'is'j ' ■:. - .- . ■ 9 j(,v: . ■•-•ij^j ■•• ■ ''-•'' ,
' ': '■' '■ "'. '•' :.- '.v.-. ■'"■ ••..•'•'■'■ ; ■ aitt? &..V'
''r'7' :. . . : : ' M '■'■■ ■- :.. • • s: ■■■;• ■ • •...' .. • "' ",, ; '
■ • ■ • ' '■ ■' ■"• i '!' jj '':., - .*"'"■■■' .„
ti
■ -■ ; ' ' •- ■ ■ -. ,:. ""■ ;, ' i ,. ■ ■■ :. a -■' '• •. • ::' ' ' '' '•
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -12- May 16, 1974
earthquake, of an architectural style and structural solidity which
is impossible to duplicate today at a cost any of us can afford. Thus,
the real real estate values in the neighborhood are in the structures -
the flats and fine old houses - not the land. It is really the archi-
tectural integrity of the neighborhood which must be preserved. To
assure that the neighborhood will recover fully we must have the guaran-
tee of appropriate zoning protection.
"The flats of San Francisco are a valuable asset to the city which
I feel are being overlooked by planners. The 2-family flat is tailored
to a person like myself, of limited means, who is starting a family
and at the same time trying to establish a career. The flats allow me
to purchase a house with ample space, a yard, and architectural integrity
and I can defray part of the cost by the rental unit and defer some
income tax by depreciation of the rental unit.
"The class of people I represent may not be very vocal, but we are
the real backbone of the city. We are also in far greater numbers than
the contractors and deserve greater consideration than we have received
in the past. After all we are permanent residents of the city, paying
our taxes year after year.
"To me and most of my neighbors, the current excessive zoning
means that: 1) property tax assessment on the lot is unrealistically
high, 2) I lose income tax depreciation on the rental unit due to the
skewed land /improvement ratio, 3) there is an ever present threat that
a high density apartment will suddenly appear next door or behind me or
across the street to change the character and force me out by making
the surroundings unsuitable for my children, and 4) there is an ever
present temptation to defer maintenance while waiting for the big offer
from an apartment developer, which, in most cases, never comes."
Vice-President Porter responded chat Mr. Tinney, the Assessor, had
told her that property assessments were based on property ud^, not on
zoning desi3nations. She said that there was a great deal of confusion
on whether more tax is paid because of higher zoning.
Mr. Susor presented a map to the Commission showing part of the affected
area.
Vincent Faber, 1225 Fifth Avenue, an officer in ISAC, summarized his
view point presented in the following letter:
"My wife and I own and occupy a Duplex on Fifth Avenue. It is In
a nice location, next to our beautiful Golden Gate Park.
"We have two children, ages 5 and 6 who play in our garden. We
enjoy the grass and flowers In our garden. Across from our backyard
is a typical Six Unit Crackerbox apartment house. On that property
■•■■■■: .
■■' ' ' ' ■■"'''. ■•"'• ' •-■■••■ ' " '
• " I ~:' ' ■■■ '--'■•-- ' '
■..■.-'-■''■ -'■•■ ■ ■ ■' ■ -: : •■',..'', • '
. - •■ I '':'■■■'••■•.•■• .,:•> ■:■ " '''-'" '■' ■' ' ■"'■'-...
'.'''' ';' -■ • : ' '• ''■'■■' .' '" ■'
■•■':' ~:~ '■'•" ; ■■■'. : >..'-■■ ' ' F :
.. \ : .' 3&i ' '; ■■■-■:■■ ::■: . ' \ . ; - ".
■..-.;: la ■" IW fssn. ! -'-... ' • '■
. . ..83s..i I -•/, •'"■'- •" ''"'"•'■ '■ '■. .',- ■ ' ■ ■ ■
! . 3 • til: ' I ' .._.;....-.■■■.
' " ' ! ;.-■ ■;■'"''•:"» V ( ' !
■ ' .' ' ,' ' ;:'•' .''''' ■ ' . , . ' - '' '•' ' ■ . .-
- " li Q2. .... '. ' :" ■'■ /.. , ' ■
■' •• ■" •' . ' " :;' ;' .' ' "
- .■ ■• ■ ■ \_ ,■■'•.-,.,. ■. _. ■ ; ... ' , -. , . ■' •..
...'..' ;'' " \ I ■ ■ ' ' ' ' '
• ' ' • '•• ■. : ■"■'■ . ' ■ - "' '•"
■...-.. . s'J lo. ■•■ :■'■ ■ .... an ,..'•■• . • - •' '
- • '- ' '
'',.■"■■. " ■" ' '' ■
'.' ' •■; ' " ''' " •■''■',...■
.. ■; . ■ ' s - ■ ■ : .bus ,'',■■■''•'
■•;■.■ IF. ,, .' ' ' !b 3fi -;:' : .. ."' .-'•''•
' ■'• '■ , ' - . .' . ' i i : .:.• :.-.: ■,■"- '■.■'. .. .3
:.' :. ■ ■ ..' '■."'' .3! 8-£ ' ,' •.■'.'••.■•.
,■-.'' O ' '-"•.. :
I • . J.03R ■ !" ; ' i I *ci or'; •■ ty "••• ' . •
- 0! . ■ i .-;... • ,■•"-■
''■■". ' "' •' ' : ' • •'■' ' ' ' ' '
- .. - ; l7e't 3«fJ wort; ., ; i ID ■.■'.'■
-■!•■. •'■'-•"■ . '. - ' ' ■-■'■.-" ...... •' . ' ' - '
* " - - - •■ I ■..-*'
•;'' '..■••' ■. .. . > i: ■ ' [o<i • ■ / :. ■"; ' •■• :
■ ' ■'■" ' ';.' ■ •-."•■..■'..;
' )?.i ].''■■': ' ' '■' ' - "'v' ' •:•■■;■■ ■■ ' : ~ '."
"' ■' '• v-';' ■ .. ..: .;■ .; . ■ . , .; . ''■■• •;'- .-h ;, ..
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -13- May 16, 1974
used to be a typical Inner Sunset Duplex with a nice green grassy yard.
It is now all concrete and serves as an outdoor parking garage - typical
of the way San Francisco is being destroyed day by day.
"We have lived in San Francisco for twelve years and in our present
house for six years.
"We like San Francisco ... or at least, we did.
"We are thinking very seriously about LEAVING San Francisco, and
probably WILL DO SO, because:
"1) the schools are lousy - read the reports if you didn't knov;
"2) City planning in San Francisco is designed for the quick
buck for developers and contractors and is ripping off the
residents.
"To quote Barbagelata on 4-23-1974 in turning down the Buena
Vista Neighborhood Association request for down-zoning Roosevelt Way:
'This city was never designed as a single family city...'
"3) Six unit crackerboxes as well as twenty-unit crackerboxes
are replacing backyards and attractive housing all over
the city.
"Take a look at the garbage just built by UC Realty on Tenth Avenue
and Lincoln Way...
"We don't care to continue to live in a City which rips off its
residents in this manner. We will present our case via the Inner Sunset
Action Committee (ISAC) on May 16th."
Vice-President Porter commented, in response to Mr. Faber's letter, that
San Francisco had more controls than any city in the nation, and that the city
was not zoned to make a quite buck for developers. She felt that the Interim
Controls went a great distance in taking care of the situation where the
development of an R-3 building would have a 45-foot backyard. Regarding leav-
ing the city, she said that you could buy a three -bedroom house in Daly City
for $30,000, but it was her view that when people are ready to leave the city,
they leave the city. To this Mr. Faber responded that rezoning would take
always the speculative value for an owner who would normally let a building
wear out and let the bulldozers take over.
Joseph Minocchi, a resident of 6th Avenue, indicated his view by submit-
ting the following statement:
"I would like to see the neighborhood in which I live retain
its unique character. I urge you to put a real limit on any increase
. ; •'"'■■ it .'x'; ' ■ '■ ■■ :'' 0 ■■ '.pi - : '■"■ ' ' " e; ; , \ .. ■
... .• ■ • ■. al hv. ■■■'■ ! ■ ■ •• ":' ■ ' '" ''"■' ■ ' " >"■' '. , . •
■■'"•-■''
'■■ .,..-■■ ,£jj ,./■•': .... ":.' -i: - ''• . . .
t ■ ■ ' " ' '■•-■.' tw
' . ' . - ■ • tj /•■ t : /. ■ -._. :- bsy uoJ ' :i J? (1"
if!3 ■'. ' . " ' '..- ' ' ; \i ■
.
■■."■:-..■ .'"'■'• .. iB.f .
. i • ■ v ■...;.. nvob . ... ': ' •• ..' 8'iV
.■•,. ■ •■■'. lit , ..•■..' ..- . '■■"';'"
• .'...•'. b It
. :. . ■• . ' -. ./ : ■■-■ ■ ■ \
•■-.... ' " '
...'■■..'•■■:•"..•'■■ ■• ■•■ - .; -: ■•• . :•. .' • • /.' .
• ' : •■•■.'.- ; ."" '
■ ; ' .'.• ■'■'.:■ 3 : • 9VJ ' 03 '. itJ ' i '<■■' > ; .
•' i] srl - ■■ ' is '•< - E '.'r .' ■ ;•' iltit ill
'_' ' ■■'•' ... • .' . '■■ ifci ■ i ■ i&l ' nnso!
'.>■''.'. ' '■'■ . . ' ' .' ■' ' .•'.. ■ ' : : :
'■ ' • '-•'-' "' "■' ' ■ '" • ;' . -■'.'■ ' . '-
■ ■ . •" ' •' -, ' ''"'': . - ■ ■'•' ■■■ • c -...••'•'.. . 3: ■•
""'' •"'■.; i ...-.- • , m n ■:.-,'..:, • ■• . ■ . . -
;/'' ,; '' -i ■'"■■ '■ ■.' :' '■■■■'■ ■ svsd .■■-■■•. ill ••'-;., . .- '
■■ :. . ';' '' ■ ' ..'.-■" ■ \;M ■ _ it ■'' . ' ■■ . : -v ' :. ■"'' ■ ■■■' " ■ . ■ : srl .• ■■
' '' ' ' ' " ■ -.- r ,■; , . :' ■■ ■ ~'[ ■'■■'■ ' ;-: : ■• '. ' ' '■ ' ■ ■ ■ -■' ■ '■■; ' ' P A ■
'-' ■ •'■;■■■■ jas ;:., ... '_--.- . ....;'' ' ;gi
'■ • ' ■..= . ,, ..,• _ .'■:■. ■■...'■.':■■•,■■ .;.. . ■;. • . ••■• !
. • ' ■ :'•'■-. ■■. , ■ :■. .' ; ; ,;,..• ._,:.-
■ " ', ■ • '.'"■"■■,: . ,' 7 ■ , ' ' ' ■ ;
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -14- May 16, 1974
of high density building by approving this rezoning request. The area
is already overcrowded with people and cars. We don't want any more
single and double family dwellings demolished by some profiteers idea
of progress. Many a concerned resident, interested in preserving the
architectural integrity of the neighborhood, has remodeled and land-
scaped his home. To prove that we are determined not to be driven out
by a hoard of realtors, contractors and politicians who say they are
trying to solve the present and future problems of overpopulation by
making sure that everyone is housed in a low-ceilinged, low cost (to the
builder) cubicle known in the 'trade' as a unit.
"Real progress consists of a balance within nature which allows
growth only when needed.
"We in our neighborhood, and I think other neighborhoods as well,
would like to see an end put to this shabby system which allows profit-
makers to create a false need and then demand the right to fill it.
This system of planned obsolescence and false markets, allowed to rage
unchecked by culpable public servants, has brought our nation to the
brink of ruin by squandering and exhausting our natural resources. It
is just as intent on devouring the world's resources so that any pre-
dictions on the fate of future generations everywhere seem forebodings
of disaster. Today let us begin to rise again from the depths of personal
greed and disunity just as almost two hundred years ago the 'shot heard
round the world' started the forces of freedom, democracy and individual
rights moving to unprecedented heights."
Martha Gardner, a resident 1221 Third Avenue, indicated that her husband
purchased that house approximately a year and a half ago. She submitted the
following statement:
"We bought our house here because we thought it had a certain
character that did not exist in the tract homes or condominiums of
the suburbs. We feel that the downzoning will preserve this type of
house which is most predominate now in our neighborhood. We already
have many apartment structures in our neighborhood and the population
density is high. The existing apartment structures are compatible with
the rest of the neighborhood in their style while providing many places
to live. With the apartment structures on the corners, the middle lots
have some yard space and living room. Although we do have many other
reasons for wanting the rezoning downward, our principal desire is to
preserve our neighborhood by disallowing the construction of new multi-
apartment structures."
Joseph Hirschman, 1376 6th Avenue, a resident owner, indicated that he
had owned his property since 1968, and was familiar with the reasons for
down-zoning and was certain that the Commission was also. He indicated that
there were reasons people leave the city, and reasons that people live in the
city, but he felt that the Inner Sunset could not stand a higher density. He
. : I ; .-■: \ . ■...'•.'
.:.;- t'i i\ .,■..■■/-'■■■''. .
." ■■■ i ■ '" "..••'' ■ ' ■ ■
. j . ■. ; I is3 a a \n& r barasoj #£
• • •'■ Jcri.f. ■''■■■: ■' •■■ ■•.
; c t ■ . ■ ""•. ' i«. .■■■''*•■- - •
i iqo i ■■■■■■ I . ■ ' ,
.-.- r .bsgnj h ni ■:•
IO £ ...,-..■..
•.'-.', ■ . nisi: : - ; ..
I \ ■
' ■ • fdrigii i
. u": 3 •'. > ... ;• -.- ;i
. ' . '•'. ■ . '. .. '". .., :. ..■..-. „•■..:: !
B5WQ ■■■-.' ...:.. !, -.i
■•"■"■' - ■ . : ' '.■" '"'."'... ■'
•■■.;..''.■ •:'■■,'..' •• • ' • . • •• . ' '■■
' ■- . i •;•.•. ■ .■■ ' j ....' I ri
: .. .:- ;■.:..", ' . • ■ &$& 98J I . ■ '
A -..-•' • . - ■■ V "•■••:. ' , ■ .'■'.•
' ' " - •■ j ;'. •■■;■■
. •■ ;• pfjj '.■ • , : i ■■',.'■: y ' ■ . ... I " :.
I 13 . . ■ fjrf '.: . :... ' ' I
- ; • ■-■■ >■;-•.■'.•.';.. a . ..■ .. aauorl Eguo
lo, !ulnJtmo&fi"os • ri : ! . . .-. »&j : . I .
>qv*.. aids i :sa ': fcw i n to; s s i ■ I £ W , ■••■■■
• •». ■■•■'■ :• ' '■ ••', '; .',- 0 ■■•■ .-'•"■ ' , ■ •- ■:■.....•■ •■,
'-•.'•■ iq -■• '...■::' ....•• u .....-.■
:-■'-.'" i I.fc. BJMl ■''.'..■ gn . ■ ■■■■ C ..-'■. ; ; • '
■■•■. g tfcjtvoxq . ifi I ■• : ^.-jg sd3 i ■ ■ '■■:■• • . 9i{:
•, ,-. ■■ - • • . . ■ : ■ . .
■ " . .■ : " ' '- ' ■ ■ '• , -•■/ ■ ■' y BilV
' ■ ! , .. ■,-.-,,, ...... . i fj, v. ..,, ,J ■•■ .
.," 3 ■;. ■'.':. ■:-. h '■-•■ .
; ■ ■-.-
■ ■ " ■" " : ~ ■ .;. . i 1 , :. us ...
'..''.'. ■ "■''''■.:■■''.'■ ■■:■,- \ •'. .'.;■;.: :'
': ' . \ r- :■'-■ ' ■ : . ■•'■■ \ \' . ' '■■ p . . T '
. : >afi . . . . ■ , . • >Iqos . . ...... '.
■ ' '''' ' , ■■'' ' ' '■ ., .'.' • .-.. '•" ■'■-. ■■■'-■ ■'■■■■
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -15- May 16, 1974
indicated that there was a way to minimize density and that was to approve
the down-zoning request. He pointed out that it was very difficult to park
in the area during the week and felt that some action should be taken to
solve the problem. He cited the following negative reasons for leaving the
city: I. Schools; 2. Transportation; and 3. Dirty streets and sidewalks*
He pointed out the positive factors for staying in the city: 1. Crime
was going down; 2. There were cultural events in the city; and 3. There
was architectural and structural integrity. He indicated that he worked
in Burlingame but did not want to live in Burlingame. He felt that down-
zoning would encourage citizens to put money into their homes without the
threat of speculation surrounding them.
With respect to leaving the city, Vice-President Porter pointed out
that she could not remember a meeting during which someone did not threaten
to leave the city.
Mrs. Annette Murphy, 1344 5th Avenue, summarized the following prepared
statement:
"I have lived in this city all my life. 1344-5th Ave. has been my
home since 1942. I went to school, played out in front with the children
on the block, we took art classes at the DeYoung Museum, used the equip-
ment in the Golden Gate Park play ground, roller skated at the school
yard on 6th Avenue, went exploring in Sutro Forest, made forts in the
then sand lot on 2nd Ave, took piano lessons from the lady on 7th
Avenue, and slept over at my friends homes throughout this neighborhood.
"My house and these homes are real family homes. Big rooms, big
back yards, storage space, good public transportation, and the remnants
of a business district. Between the rapid growth of U.C. and its un-
certainties for the future, the contractors desire to build and the
city's zoning of this area, it is now on the verge of becoming a new
slum at the edge of a street level freeway.
"Less family homes, less real families. More cars, less open play
space and more traffic on the streets to live with. More apartments,
less families and more transient occupants. Transient means fewer old
friends. Transient means 'It's not my problem and I'm moving soon any-
way, so I won't get involved'. We have that in our neighborhood now
and we don't want or need any more. We want you to zone the properties
to be in accordance with what is there on the land now, not to reflect
what could be there .
"This city hasn't been able to hold the quality of people that it
has produced. Of my high school class, 1% lives in this city, ME. My
friends say, 'I won't rear my children there, I go and visit my folks,
work there, and we've been to the zoo and that stuff on the weekend a
couple of times, but live there, not us.' That's 99% of my class.
Lowell 1956, 105 students.
- ; :• - I '
' . , •
■■• ■ • [si ' -
•'..:■■.- ,1 •:..'• [
; .1 ■ . '
. ... • • >3 ■ J o
..'•'■■.; •'
- .. ■ . ... tufi ».k avJ .
..■.--.•■'. ■■ •
■••■■■
■:> l ■ • . ' . . • ■
• - . n J . :
. , ■!. .: . : • . ' ; • .....
• •■■ •■,',.''. ,■'.'"'• I ". .
.' .. . ..••.'
. • '■ -''''• I
■ . ' -. * ' . . ' .
. '. I '.;• '"',. , »b • • '
-■- ■ : ' • ■
'■ . '\ ' '
■ „.-... •••■;■. - ..
% 'anasm . . i . j/jj ■. . ...
: >i ■ -' .
' " " ::-.-.'. - ■ :, i
. " ■ ■
■•' 3' - ' •• 0 . . . r ' ; . . , \ . ■ .
■ - ".' . ' , , : I ••■'.'■■. :
> ■ ; SJaJ ■•",.■'.■ n .■ ■ . . ;
■ ■■ ' -. ■ . , ..•'.. ..•..'..-.
' ■ ■ ■ ■ .'■" : ■■■'> ; ' ....•■■... ,'..-• , tl >
■:■■ . . ..'
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -16- May 16, 1974
"You Commissioners can at least prevent a greater population
density from developing in the Inner Sunset by zoning these properties
as requested by the Inner Sunset Action Committee. Help us retain
what is left of a marvelous group of homes for the backbone of our
society 'THE FAMILY'."
Anna Thompson, 1327 - 7th Avenue, summarized the following prepared
statement:
"My name is Anna Thompson. My sisters and I own Lots 4, 5,
and 6 in Block 1762, and live at 1327 - 7th Avenue (1762-6). My
father bought the property shortly after the 1906 earthquake, so you
can see that we have been residents of the Inner Sunset for a long
time. We have watched it change and grow and have always enjoyed all
the advantages of an ideal location for moderate income family living,
with nearby stores, schools, churches, play areas, and transportation.
Although the one-family home, in a variety of sizes, predominated,
there were also flats and apartments, which somehow seemed to be mainly
on corners and did not block out backyards and windows on adjoining
properties. Recently, there has been an alarming change, a building
boom that threatens the residential quality of the Inner Sunset. UCSF
has wiped out whole blocks of homes, and now builders are razing family
homes to replace them with multi-unit apartments, too small and too
expensive for family living.
"For petition signing I covered only the one small block (1762)
on which I live. The general reaction was 'Why wasn't something done
sooner?' One tenant on Seventh Avenue, after signing the petition,
said, 'We are heartsick. Come, see what has taken the place of the
Park trees and Mt. Tamalpais when I looked out my side window. Now I
keep the shade drawn,' and she lifted it to display a wall of unpainted
plywood. On Eighth Avenue, the resident -owner whose window is now
covered by a side wall has a room that before the apartment was built
had sunlight but must now be lit with electric light. However, she is
even sadder about the destruction of her plants by the builder and the
sunlight that has been permanently taken away from her backyard garden.
Others on Eighth Avenue regretted the loss of the view they had enjoyed
of the trees on Mt. Sutro. Their back windows now look out on walls.
There was the young doctor and his wife who said they wanted to buy a
home in the area but couldn't compete with speculators. Others said
they feared what would happen to the enjoyment of their homes and yards
if the place next door was sold. These are not isolated examples, be-
cause when I talked with other petitioners, the same fears were expressed,
"The greatest tragedy is that the older hcusing with its essen-
tially good architecture and space for family living, once destroyed,
will be permanently lost as housing stock suitable for moderate living,
because experienced builders have said it would not be economically
sound to build anything like them today.
• . I '.,. ..-..'.' ■ ■ ■' ' ■ " '
• • •■. ' • ■' •■
,-■■.■ ' 1 ; '■■ ■• ■ • ■■■■ - •
:•: ....... ... I l (, ' -■'
c . : • ■ ;■■■■
. i ■■■-■. '■''..■'..-:■ • ' '' "'
■■■'.:'■■ . ' '• I
..-.■'. ;::.■'
..' ■ ":• • • ., ' .' -- •■•..■ • • •'
■'■'•. ..." ' V ■ .
.''"" BI 1< ' • ■' ■
....'■.. '.■;••■•-
ifflOi ';.■-.' '■-■'■■
: , .." •■ ■--'., ' ■'''-'
E>s a ■• • to '>o
.. ' _ : ■■
' ■ ' ■■ I ■ . • :
' ''■'•-■'.■
:...'.■.-...
3 • ' ' ' ' ' '
'■ ..-.-,, B S
■'...'..-. , :
,;... '■ ■ :
! ' - '. ' '
I ■ ■ ' ■ '"..-. . . ' . • ., I |j ■
■ • ■ ■ ' . ' . .• . '
'■■..• - ; ''. ' . . .. ■ :
:"- - ' . t •.'■:■ . • :■
' ■ ..■ : .;■''. ■ ' . • • '
'-.••. i ioI S ■'...■
■' :•. ■■/■■..-. ,■■■■■ ...
■; ■..•■ ;'■••■ •' . tiP
'" ' 4 - ' '''.'"
■ ■ ■''..■■■ '■ . .. '• |
1 -'■■■■-■- v IB
■■ "■ ~ .':■■■.■ . J ' • ■ ' : ■■■
: ' '■ •- ' . '• ' I
' 00 • i | . ' ... . ,
i' ' ■
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -17- May 16, 1974
"The existing zoning invites speculation and provides for
higher density in an area already burdened with problems of traffic
and parking. It indicates to builders what can be expected in the
future, so the interim controls are no help. In the petitions you
have a tangible consensus of how the majority of the residents and
property owners feel. The rezoning petition reflects more accurately
the existing patterns. Help preserve the residential quality of the
Inner Sunset by approving the rezoning petition."
At the close of her testimony she presented the following statement
from Leo E. Hagan:
"My name is Leo Hagan. I am a resident and property owner in
the Inner Sunset and have lived at 1371 - 4th Avenue for the past
21 years. I am a member of ISAC and also a member of the Laurel
Heights Property Owners Association and both of these organizations
are working to preserve the residential character to encourage young
couples with family to move in, and this has happened on 4th and 5th
Avenues .
"There have been considerable improvements on 4th Ave. and Parnassus
and Irving in the past two years in painting and improvements to several
structures and due to this renewed interest, property values and the
quality of the neighborhood is improving.
"I am strongly in favor of the proposed rezoning of the Inner
Sunset and urge you to approve the applicant's proposal."
John Olsen, 1475 - 8th Avenue, a home owner, summarized the following
prepared statement:
"I am strongly in favor of the proposed rezoning of the Inner
Sunset and urge you to approve the proposal before you today.
"I firmly believe the only hope to assure the future quality of
life in the Inner Sunset is to retain its present residential character
and rich diversity of individuals and housing structures. We are for-
tunate to have an unusually wide variety of residents, with differing
life styles and racial, economic and social backgrounds. We also have
a sound and varied housing stock with many old homes, flats and buildings
of high architectural character and spaciousness which are still reason-
ably priced compared to real estate values in many other centrally
located areas of San Francisco. Consequently, it is one of the few
remaining centrally located urban areas of the City with good surround-
ing facilities where families with children of moderate income can still
afford to own or rent their own homes. The Inner Sunset Area has a much
higher density problem than most other San Francisco neighborhoods
because of the close proximity of the University of California Hospital
complex and the large number of older apartment houses located in the
.
[•
'
J
' ■
I
-
• . '' • ' •
'f*o si q ,.'..■■
•■ : ; ' ■.■■''■■-
.••.■-.■■•.. i ■ ■'■
: . ■ --."'-.'. Bin
.v. i - ■' ■ : ■ ••
I to. JllBop ..." "'• ■ I • ■■■. '
q-\ ■■.:■ .'
■
■ [ ■
-
.. ■ •. .••■■•' ■ • ■
1 •-."•■-■
. '■. . - a -. Ina a
-■ ■■
MI ■."•'.
■
■
1
: I . .■:......
j; '-■.'.' ■■■;
lilauj ••"*'■"• d I a •
■ -■■' .-,'.- ••
.- •■ • •
" ■.-.•- ■ -
.,--.. . . " • ■
M ri: • ■■..'.• . ••
... '. ! I ......:- " ' .
»r>;-"i 93 i ' . : ■..'.
....'■ • ■., ni
.' . . ,'■'■" . • . . :,
'■..■'■ ■ " • ■ ■
-
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -18- May 16, 1974
area, usually on corner lots, and the increasing number of newer
multiple unit apartments being constructed in the area. Nevertheless,
the Inner Sunset housing stock on most blocks still consists primarily
of older single family homes and flats, but unfortunately the present
zoning classifications do not reflect this situation. Most of the
Inner Sunset is zoned R-3 and R-4, which makes it particularly attractive
to real estate and development interests who find the area particularly
attractive for construction of new, architecturally nondescript, cultipie
unit buildings which are quickly destroying the present residential
character of many blocks such as 10th Avenue between Judah and Irving
Streets. As an example of the existing inequitable zoning classifications,
block No. 1845 where I live is zoned R-3, yet 757. of the building struc-
tures on this block are R-2 type structures. This ratio is typical of
several other blocks in the immediate area.
"Interim zoning regulations do not solve the unique problems of
density facing our neighborhood. Interim controls do not stop real
estate speculation with its concurrent bad effects on the area, and
are as the name implies 'interim1. Interim controls do not help pre-
serve the quality of life in our area, and they do not stop the destruc-
tion of single family homes, but only increase speculation by real estate
and development interests whose only concern is to maximize profits, and
not love of the neighborhood and its quality of life.
"With some stabilization of the U.C. Hospital complex, residents
have recently been improving their homes, and young families with
children such as mine are buying these homes instead of absentee land-
lords. Trees have been planted and the residents are taking a renewed
Interest in this historical San Francisco neighborhood.
"I urge you to help us continue the improvement of the Inner Sunset
by approving the rezoning on 8th Avenue and immediately adjacent streets
from R-3 to R-2, and thereby rectify the inequities of the past. I also
urge you to approve the rezoning requests for other Inner Sunset areas
and thereby help assure the delicate balance of people and retain the
architecturally distinctive older hones ancl buildings vhich are not re-
placeable, and give our neighborhood its unique character."
Joseph A. Rydberg, 1453 - 10th Avenue, summarized and presented the
following prepared statement:
"A striking example of encroachment of multi-unit residential
structures on a typical family area is in evidence in a three block
area in the Inner Sunset.
"In the 1400 block of 10th Avenue there were only 34 apartment
units 15 years ago. Now there are 66 apartment units or an increase
of 94 percent. Fourteen of the newer units have been built In the last
8 or ten years and the last 4 in 1973.
•■'..- ■ ' . ... ■■- •' • ■
•>-■■. , ' ■'.
•..-. " . . :- W ' ' ' '
3 a-©: •_. ■ i. , 31 . I ■ . . • ■ ■
...... | . • ' ■
• , • . bfl. < ' . .3 ' ■■ ■ I "'
0.1 ■ ' ' . ■ ■ ■ ••■ '.:.■ : ■ ' ' loJ ■■■•.■■
"■:'■■■■•'■,- ' ' '
..'''. . . ■ '
.: ' . . . ■ ■ I
• ' ' ' '" " "' ' ' '' ' •'
■ • ; gj . , ..■•■"< ■ ■;
'•-••'.'.-.•■
IS ' ... ■ . ■ ■ ■ . ■ ' . .
■ . ' • . ■. • -
. . •
■ . | • . ■
•<.■■■-.■■...•- . ■ ' • ' '
. . ' ■ ,
•i j 9 ■ • ' -'■•-.
.'.■.■'.■.■...■
• . : :■ , mi j m ■ ■ '■ ■
f>9W i tM ; .' bsJflfiilq
. '■''■■" ■"
... - ■■ .•-■■■ ■ ■ ' i . • q
• ij I: •
•■'■-■'.■■ ' (&anl ■■ c ,. :
' ■ ■ ' ■ •-• ; "■ '■ ! •■ ,'.' ' •
: ■' , ; ' ' ' '
' . v. ;- i :' \
■■■:- '■ . . ..-..'■ ■- . -
■ • :
■• 1.1 ■ ■ . ■■ .. :.. ..■■.. ,J . , _.■ |
. ■ I . bjva i \ . "■ . • • i
.. , • • . ■
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -19- May 16, 1974
"In the 1300 block of 10th Avenue there were only 37 units 15
years ago. Now there are 91 units or an increase of 145 percent.
"By far the worst encroachment is in the 1200 block of 10th
Avenue. Fifteen years ago there were only 12 units on this block.
Now there are 108 units or an 800 percent increase. A large number
of these units were built in 1973 and many In early 1974. One struc-
ture with a large number of units is in the final stages of construc-
tion.
"In conclusion I would point out that the 1200 block is already
ruined as a family neighborhood, the 1300 block is headed for this
same dubious end and we would want to stop its insidious growth in
the 1400 block.
"As a representative of the applicants of the 1400 block of 10th
Avenue, I strongly urge the Planning Commission to act favorably on
our application for rezoning to halt this encroachment with all its
negative impacts."
At the conclusion of his presentation, Mr. Rydberg presented the
statement of Jane S. Rowe, a resident owner at 1457 - 10th Avenue:
"I am speaking in favor of the proposed rezoning.
"As you know, two rezoning proposals are being considered here
simultaneously. The residents of my block on 10th Avenue became aware
of the zoning problem about a year ago when another apartment house
replaced a home on our street. We appeared at the Board of Permit
Appeals attempting to prevent that construction, but failed and were
advised to file a rezoning petition. Our rezoning request was filed
last summer. Last fall, when the ISAC group became interested in the
problem, we joined them. The problems of the 1400 block of 10th Avenue
are the same as those of the rest of the Inner Sunset. We look on the
two applications as one. We must have zoning protection to maintain
our neighborhood.
"My husband and I work at the U.C. Medical Center. We chose the
Inner Sunset as a place to live and raise our children. We can spend
our time with our family rather than commuting.
"There are many other advantages to raising a family in the city.
We get to know people of many other backgrounds and life styles, and
people of all ages. The children can play in our grassy yards or in
a nearby playground. We can use all the fabulous facilities of the
Golden Gate Park.
"We fear that without zoning protection, our neighborhoods will
no longer be suitable for family life. More cars in and out of apart-
ment house driveways will imperil children playing. Pleasant gardens
.
■
:■-■■'
iCi
■■
■ - - '
■
■ .
■ ■
.■ ■
bss , ' ■ ' • ' ••
i ■ • . ■-.
'.'■.■: • ...-•- ■ ■ ' <a ■''.•■
i.. ; > &>'oJtd < I "ic ' . i ■ ••. ' ■"
' ' ' '•' ■ ' • ' "
XIs L tan . ... '•' '
.
.■' i .-■..- • /■■ ■ . ■ ■ ' . ■
■xi
.,.'■." :'.•■ .■ •.'..'
9 ■-..■'■ j . ; : •- joq< " . . ■ '
' I ' . ■ I o ■
■ - rod "•--. .;.,.-■•.• .-.■."■
'.-..•/;• ■ • . | .
'■''..:.■ tod ' iflsv •' ' . ■ . .
5S ' ! ' f
''.'.■...■.
.: bold 0 - ' •• ■
,..."•'.. ■..•...'■• ... . . ■.. :
- '. ' ' ,..■.-.■■ ! .. ■ j '
• ' '. '.•■•."'
- ■ Oi i ., . ' •;';•'. ..-•■. • -
'■•'•■'. :' ..: i ■
a ,-".,- I 9
■" ;- • ■■ ■ . . : t a. ■
, ■-■ ' ■] 3 ■..'''■.... •:•, . . .
3i sa - .-. . • ' ...;.- . ■ , ,
• ' ■ " C , I >rf; aa si
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -20- May 16, 1974
need sunshine. The transient, non-family nature of many apartment
dwellers will diminish the desirability of our neighborhood.
"We want the Inner Sunset to remain a place for families, too.
Rezoning is the only way this can happen. Unless zoning laws are
changed to protect the neighborhood, more and more apartment houses
will be built. Families like ours will be forced to move to a more
compatible area."
Denis Mosgofani, 1227 10th Avenue, indicated that he had moved to
San Francisco from Los Angeles one year ago. Two weeks after he moved
into his home, two homes were destroyed in his block. In the period between
July and Christmas, 71 new buildings were started in his area. When he
asked Mr. Steele about the Interim Controls, he found out that there were
five more applications for more apartments on his street which were not
affected by the Interim Controls since they had been applied for before
the adoption of the Interim Controls. He pointed out that there was a
high density of apartments and that they were not for families. He felt
that San Francisco would eventually be a human jungle or Manhattan West.
Vice-President Porter asked what percentage of the properties in
San Francisco were R-l. Mr. Steele responded that between 50 and 60% were
R-l. Vice-President Porter felt that this percentage of R-l and the Addi-
tional R-2 in the city tended to negate the argument that the area was
becoming Manhattan West.
David Salazar, a resident of Irving Street, indicated that he had
lived in the area all his life. He had seen 7 nouses torn down which
meant that seven families had moved away. In their place 45 units of
apartments appeared. He indicated that if this continued he could not be
a San Franciscan any more and that the situation would be unbearable.
Vice-President Porter indicated that there were 62 letters in favor
of the reclassification, and 16 letters in opposition. She then called
on the opponents to speak.
Michael McCormac, 401 Judah, a real estate agent, developer, and a
resident, felt that there should be a category for those with mixed feelings.
He felt there was a need for apartment housing, and believed that zoning
should meet the needs of the people. He indicated that when he had married,
he had rented an apartment and he felt there was a need for realtors to
provide rental units. He felt he could make similar points to the ones
he had made when he commented on the Richmond re-zoning. He suggested
preserving family areas on the cross-streets and avenues and agreed that
they should be down-zoned. On the other streets - Lincoln, Judah, and
Irving - zoning should be retained. He felt that ISAC had a problem in
the Hugo Street area, and agreed with restriction of zoning in that area.
He said that most of the homes were of the single family and duplex nature
and that not one more car could fit into the area. He agreed that apartments
do not belong in the single family area. But he pointed out that not one
I • ' " ' '" . .. : - ■ ■
'•■... ft) : " ' '-• ; " '
: ids ' '. ■ : '..''''■•
■ . j i :. '■ ..' - i :■'--■'.'
.:■''•■
'■" ■ ;■■ : : ■ ■ ■"■ -■'■' •. •'
■ ■ . ■ '■ •- : "• ; ' ' : '■ • ' ' --
.' - • ■•..'.;
■ ■ '• . ■ ' :; . -: .':'.';• • 3 ■ : :' ; >
s33 :' no ,i ■
. ■ •
■ill ni . •
... ■.. a sn .... . ■■•.<"■. . .
: : '.:■ . I ' ':'■ '■•'',■ •; . I '.. ■ ■ t."'J | . ■.
■'.' . I ■'■.."
! ■; '.':' ■ . ■ ■' • . .
:'■'..''•■: S 'J • •
• ' • . ■ ■ ■ ' $h I .■ \ ■ ■
,..:.■•■•:■• : ....:■■■ ■
:'. \n>. . I ' •
'■.■■•
. ■'■■ ' • . -' ■■■■■■ '8 snivel io
'"''.- • •• •■ ..." : ' ■ I
' ' ' .
■ ■ : ■ . '■- how i bat i - . ,
"■ . ' ' ' ' •■ ' -
... .■•.•■...
' ' -.....'■.. . .■ . .
' ' ■'• ■ ■ i ..•'.'-■•. .-.. ''■ ■ S M ' ' ' I . •
•■"'"-'." ''■'.'' ; ' •
■- • ' ■■ ' '•'. .'''- ■ ' ; ' ' ■ ' ,• '
. | ■■;■'.• \ .•'.-. .
•v ■ '. ' ' C . ■ _. ■ . . ■
.■' '". ; : ■■•-, •' feci irfaj ' I .. . • • . "
■:.:••, ' •■ •• > . ' ■" '•' ' •- ' '
"■'■•' ■■' ' V-,. ' '■ "•"': ■'■ ' , " ■ ■' .fi nos . .
• • ■• • * ;•'-' . ''. ; ' ' '
-'- : .'• ;
' " ■'' ' " ' • "'■ - ■ • •'. : ■ ■. -.- • : . |
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -21- May 16, 1974
building under construction has been built under the Interim Controls, and
he assumed that no applications had been received for buildings under those
controls. He indicated that economically it was not feasible to build under
the Interim Controls, and builders were forced by economics not to build.
He pointed out that the Interim Controls have yet to be tested.
Mary Orr, a small investor, and a realtor, stated that she lived in the
Richmond but had purchased 3 sets of flats on 7th Avenue. She had relied on
the 3-R report which indicated that her area was zoned R-4 and she felt this
was logical in that it was near a gas station. Since she was almost next to
an industrial area, she felt it was unfair to be faced with a down-zoning,
especially when she had plans to improve her property. She wanted to main-
tain the existing zoning so that she could make better use of her property.
Adel Nepomuceno, 409 Kirkham Street, addressed the Commission as
follows:
"I am a San Francisco resident since 1963 and presently owns
and resides at 409 Kirkham Street with my wife and three children.
I am objecting to the downzoning in general and in particular to the
downzoning from R3 to Rl of Kirkham Street between 7th and 9th Avenues
for the following reasons:
"1. The downzoning is discriminatory because multi-family unit
is the prevailing structure along Kirkham Street between 8th and 9th
Avenue :
"a) North Side - 2-multiple, 3-two story flats, 3-single family
"b) South Side - 3-multiple, 5 single family
"In addition there are three neighborhood commercial establish-
ments at the corner of Kirkham and 9th Avenue.
"2. ISAC presented only 14_ signatures out of 35 property owners
of the Kirkham block between 7th and 9th Avenue. The signatures were
obtained not only from property owners but also non-owner residents.
The signatures were also obtained on false representations that property
taxes will be lowered and that property values will not decrease.
"3. ISAC also stated that you can rebuild your structure to its
previous design in case the building is destroyed. It is my experience
as a City Employee that you go thru all sorts of red tape to build a
structure if it does not conform to the existing zoning at the time of
application. A request for variance and a shifting of responsibility
usually occurs after a zoning has been in effect for a year or more.
'.."■'
1
'■'■''■'-
. : ',.•■. ..."
', ■: n -.-■., : , -."'. ■;
3
.'.,."-.''.' bait
>
... ■ ; , os .■■.-:-
-. . ■
--■•.■'
• - ■ . - ;
s- e aits
-.''.■'.•-. ■- ' • ■'"
.-,[;...■ .... j • ■•
,,''.>'■'■.. '! •'. .•■ '
. • ■ . ■; •.-.!■•. : . ..•'••■•. ■■
■ ■->:■ , . >: . '■.■.■ ■ •
i! ■ ■. - ..-.,.
■ : _ sale . ' ■ ■ ■
;-. 89J ■ -■■ ■ :
t oi art . ■ ' . " [
.■':-<-■■'■ ". - |: • .. ■ .'
:•.,->- ■ . ■ ."
[J • .-.
.•■'-• OS E 1
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -22- May 16, 1974
"I do not represent any vested group of realtors or builders.
I am a city employee Investing in an income property for future source
of income.
"I therefore request and recommend to the members of the Planning
Commission to retain the R-3 zoning for Kirkham Street between blocks
8th and 9th Avenue.
"Thank you for your consideration in the matter."
Ira S. Kohn, owner of property at Tenth Avenue and Lincoln Way which
is occupied by a gasoline service station, advised the Commission that his
property will have to revert to residential use in 1980; and, if the property
were to be reclassified from R-4 to R-2, as proposed by the applicants, he
did not feel that residential development would be feasible. He emphasized
that the property exists as a small island between larger buildings; and he
urged that the R-4 zoning of the site be retained.
Andrew G. Bacigalupi, son of the owner of property located at 1212
Eleventh Avenue, stated that his father's property is a corner lot which
also has frontage on Lincoln Way. He remarked that Lincoln Way is hardly
suitable for adult living and is certainly not a good residential environ-
ment for children; and he felt that reclassification of properties along
that street from R-4 to R-2 would be a completely arbitrary action. He
believed that no more than one dwelling unit could be constructed on his
father's property if the property were to be re-zoned to R-2. In conclusion,
he stated that he was of the opinion that his father's property should not
be discriminated against merely because it has 100 feet of frontage on
Eleventh Avenue and only 32 feet of frontage on Lincoln Way.
At this point of the proceedings Commissioner Mellon returned to the
meeting room and reassumed his seat at the Commission table.
Mrs. May Laughran, 11 Clayton Street, represented an elderly lady
who resides at 1264 6th Avenue. The property owned by the woman is zoned
R-3; and Mrs. Laughran felt that down-zoning of the property to R-l would
be unfair.
Ken Nelson, owner of property located at 1222 8th Avenue, stated
that he had recently purchased his home and advised the Commission that
he had spent $5,000.00 in the last six months to upgrade the pair of flats
which occupy the site. He believed that there is a need for R-4 zoning
in the city; and he was of the opinion that the integrity of the subject
neighborhood could be maintained through the restrictions imposed by the
Interim Residential Zoning Controls. He urged that the existing zoning of
his property be retained.
■ '"• I ■'-■:- ■'■
>Miiaa '■ .'■ • i
,: bJ 5 StO'J ■ -: , '' ' ': V ' ■ " •'"
. : ■ \ , ■ " ■ : ' ■ - ■•'
' ' 0
I ■',■■..'" .■■■ '.'.„■. h i I" ■■-.■'• ■" I ' • • - -
■
".::..'■ ;...''
fsdi"! i •. ■.'•■' ..1: ! aAv& . n< . . ts ■ '
- [t« ■ - " ' ■ '. ' s' sbiis i ■
3 : J - ll • ■ s - '■ .•■- : ■ i 8 ." - .■•■•
. ' ■ ■- ' '.'-• ■'' '. ■ si l " i-' . W
bne ' ! f! , . - '.-..■ ■ titxl ■ ■ ■ : ' . - si ■ t;
. ! '. ' -■ ' . ■
E '■•- ■■■ >0. '.. ''■•''■-• ■ • '• '■ ' ;
.'■•■'.' ~; ■.;.•■■ tsqotq ' ■ .- ■ •'■
■ ■■[.'■ ■"-.'-.-:': : . . '■';'■' ,\ i i
.j ! . . • :" .-.■■•■ t: ••-..■■•.'•••'•
■ • . '■'••:''' • '■'■.'-
:■•-■■. •.'■'•.'•:' i o ' :
■■•■:.'•,:■•.■.• jit sci ...••..',
•.-•/.:'-■'■■■'' i • • lie
.■,••.'!.■.■->:■■..■■'■•' j jjrjiq I I
;.:' ■■.■.•.:.••.. I ■■ '. .' . . ' | ' aoa
.v ;W " - ' • • .• ;
•• I baenrurs • 'an '••.". i .. ■ *' ■
: • • ■ ; sin • ■..;...■• '
>:;'" ■ ;. "'• '" •' ' '
■ israo; ' .-..- .'''"■ ' - ...
' CyOW .-'..':--■•; ' ; '.'■ " . ... • ■ frfgi B
•
•'-'.' ■ ' ■■ ■ c f 3l i3.B »< .• . ■:■■■<■■: I -:.
■■■':■'■■ : ■' " ''■: ,. ■.-':' -. ■ - . '■- t( |
■'...'•' ; - - ■ . ■'■ : i:fc - ! sift .:.'';;' .
; ' . ■■ ' .: '. • ' •' ' : -'
■ ■ ■ ;;■■■■ -■ a \ '.-_ • "•.-•■...•■. .. ■, ■ ■
d ' ■;-■ - ... . . . ■ : • • - i d "; '.• f ■'
-
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -23- May 16, 1974
John O'Leary, owner of property on 8th Avenue between Lincoln Way
and Irving Street, felt that the applicant's proposal should be modified
to some degree. He stated that he had not previously been aware of the
Interim Residential Zoning Controls; , however, he was well aware of Building
Code restrictions to the extent that he knew that developers are quite
limited with regard to the types of developments which are permitted. He
indicated that he supported approximately 50% of the applicant's request;
however, rather than having the entire application approved, he would prefer
that the existing zoning be retained.
Jon B. Eremeef, 521 Judah Street, remarked that certain streets such
as Lincoln Way, Judah Street, and Irving Street are not really family-
residential in character. The avenues, on the other hand, are family areas;
and he felt that the applicant's proposals were suited to such areas. He
advised the Commission that his property was zoned R-3 when he purchased
it and that it is developed with four legal dwelling units. He stated he
would not have purchased the property unless it had had R-3 zoning; and he
felt that down-zoning of the property, as requested by the applicant, would
lower the value of the lot.
Richard Jackman, 152 Gth Avenue, staged that he is a single person*^ he
felt that there was little to be gained by reclassification of his property
from R-2 to R-l; and he remarked that such reclassification would reduce
his options.
Keith E. Fitch, owner of property at Hugo Street and 6th Avenue, stated
that his property is zoned R-3 and is occupied by a four unit building.
While the building is not very active at the present time, he stated that
it was his intention to restore and up-grade the structure; and he felt that
a change of zone would not be of any help to him in his endeavor.
Vincent Walsh, owner of property in the 1300 block of 11th Avenue,
stated that his property was not affected by the subject application. How-
ever, he saw nothing wrong with the present zoning of the Inner Sunset
district. He stated that he regarded the Interim Residential Zoning Controls
to be a monumental mistake; yet, having been adopted, he felt that they
should at least be given a chance before large-scale re-zonings take place.
Chuck Yue, owner of property at 1492 9th Avenue and 444 Kirkham Street,
urged that the R-3 zoning of his property be retained.
Howard E. McLin, 1590 8th Avenue, stated that he has owned his property
since 1952. The property is occupied by a two-story, two-unit, apartment
building. While that building had been typical of the scale of the neighbor-
hood when it was purchased, other properties in the area have been developed
more intensively during the interim; and, as a result, he felt that reclas-
sification of his property and others in the area from R-3 to R-l would
have a discriminating affect against him since he and one other neighbor
own the only small buildings in the area.
• • . ..
■ ■ . : •.■•.-. ■ ■' •• ■ • i • I nrfol
■ :•■.:■■
• .-■■■■. j I 708
' ' ■; '■"'• '- -• :• I -
: ■• '■ ■•■•"•'":' . ; . ■■
■'".'''■ ' '■
. .■ ' ■ • ij ' . '- • ■
■ • ..■■■:■■.'■'■■ ■ - ' ■ ■
■ ...... IS: ■:-■ •■,■■■■. X3i '■ ■■■:■■ ■
■ " - , .. . ri L>-s ■. .'I s. - >■■■ .-. - ' •■'
'..■■'..■• .. ..■•.; ' ' ■ ■'
'•■■■■•;■.
■•'.•'■ i ri 'i ' • ' ' ' - ' • ' ■ '
'■.'-' •
' ■" " '- ■-;'. • V •; , '
■■■'•■ ' :''.'.'■.;' ';• r - I " '.
' : ■■■■ ■■ '■■'.'..
. •:. ■•■ _ . : ■
. .1062 :{d;l ' i .' ■';"'••
' :' ■•■ . . ••■■' ■" '- ■ : ■ .; ■■ • '
■ : ; '■''..' ' ' ': - .... . ,■■ • •
■■■.-,'.'
i ;-'... . .,,.•-•;
' '. ■ -•• " ' i'idi a ', ■ i ' • '
ietrng ; . ; • •- . ;■: • ■ ■ :.
■■'..;, ■ . '• . ' ■ ' : . . .• ' - '
''.','-'.- . .;.. . ■
■'■'•■■■' / " :■ ri • .-'-..■
' • • ' ■■ • ' '
b: : ■' e ' sri r ■ ' ■''•..,.;. ,.■■•, ■ • .'
. - , ' ■
' ' ■•:■. ' ; ... >q£_ -.•-''■ ' •■ • .
' ■ ' ' ' ' • ■ '
. :•'■■■■■
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -24- May 16, 1974
Tim Eichenberg, representing SPEAK, stated that his organization
strongly supported the Inner Sunset's "down-zoning" request.
A member of the audience stated that 120 buildings with four units
or more have been constructed in the Inner Sunset district in recent years.
As a result, he felt that it was obvious that the Inner Sunset is being
subjected to the same sort of pressures as was the Richmond district; and
he emphasized that neighborhood requests for "down-zoning" in the Richmond
district had been approved by the Commission. He then read and submitted
the following letter which had been addressed to the Commission by Assembly-
man John L. Burton:
"I am writing on behalf of the Inner Sunset Action Committee's
proposal to re-zone the thirty-eight block area bounded by Tenth
Avenue, Lincoln Way, Arguello Boulevard and Kirkham Street from a
predominantly R-3 and R-4 designation to an R-l and 2 residential
area.
"I believe the strongest argument for down-zoning this neighbor-
hood lies in the current residents' desire to preserve the single
family residential character of the area and to avoid the destruction
of that character by impingement of multiple unit apartment structures.
As you know, low to moderate cost family housing is already at a pre-
mium in San Francisco, and I share the Committee's concern about its
continuing depletion.
"I hope the Commission will see fit to act favorably on the Com-
mittee's proposal both in order to retain the limited single family
homes in existence and to preserve the integrity of the neighborhood
In accordance with the residents' wishes."
Joseph N. Minahan, 1377 9th Avenue, stated that he supported approximate-
ly 95% of ISAC's proposal for re-zoning. However, on behalf of his landlady,
he urged that certain exceptions be made. One of the exceptions involved
reclassification of the property on the southwest corner of 9th Avenue and
Kirkham Street from R-3 to R-l. He stated that the building has 8 to 10
units and has existed for some time; and, under the circumstances, he felt
that reclassification to R-l would be unfair. The second exception which he
suggested was a parcel of property located on Lincoln Way between 10th and
11th Avenues. He stated that that parcel of property is the only lot in the
block currently occupied by a single family dwelling; and he felt that re-
classification of that property from R-4 to R-2 would not make good sense.
Mariko Tse, 1237 8th Avenue, read and submitted the following prepared
statement:
"I am in favor of re-zoning my block from R-4 to R-2. This may
seem odd since my side of the street is composed of 8 apartment build-
ings and only 4 residential style flats. This reflects the type of
.
. ■ ■ -
■ .:
-"■•■■..■- ■
■•'■■• . ;• a
i
:■
- : k i . I
d '-':.:■
,v ' ■:..:. ibo "< bsaeVtbJ • t;
• - ' ■■■ .& M ' ' gj ■ "
• .■•'..••■-... h '
''■■'. ''
. \ unoi .•'.".
-..'.•,, . • ''.:'' b ■ ■ ■ . ■
■.•■.■:■:■,■'■ • ':. if]
it •-.■■-!.■ ■.
' ; ■.■•',-. ■•.'.■"■■....' ' b
. '
■ ' : - • ■ ,
- -■ . b* '-..■.•■ • ■ [fieoq
>rf»o rfgi .", ■- | . & :
> . . ■ . ■
■ ■ - ■ io< '. . ' b I . '
■ i ;- . ':.:>.z. ■■■■■- ' ■ , .'.■.■■.-■ • '
■ ■ ■' : ' • lo ' roi . ,■■ I 3 ■• '
-'-■■■ ' ■ . :■
' : ■' Sj ' ■■■,..,■
■" ■ ■ ■ - Li ,bfl >mjt.1 ' . •
' - ■ » ■ :" i ,. • . ■
■•• ..■.■--'. ■ • ; . • . ■ - ■
Si i , .'■• : ■ .. . .■-■ .. j
\ :•. : :-- . . • - .. ■ -
■ 1 ■'■■'■ . .-' ' ■
.
■
I & i e
■ ■
;
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -25- May 16, 1974
street that results from R-4 zoning. I am presenting some of the
viewpoints I have heard from residents during the past weeks.
"In total, there are approximately 45 units on the west side of
the street; I have tried to reach each resident. Oftentimes no one was
at home and/or did not respond to my written messages, slipped under
doors. I collected about 80 signatures. I was unable to contact about
20 units. Of the residents I did contact, 17 people refused to sign the
petition, 3 of whom were property owners. In the case of the property
owners, there was a strong feeling that rezoning would depreciate the
property values because they would not be able to sell to contractors
who could expand the existing structure. The other property owners do
not live on the block. One did respond favorably to our mailed letters.
"The main reasons for refusal were: do not sign any petitions, did
not want to get involved, moving out soon, too sick to come to the door,
afraid the rent would go up, had company, or not interested. Several
people refused to come to their doors.
"However, many residents did sign and were very positive in their
attitude towards re-zoning. They showed their support by signing the
petition even though they lived in the kind of structure that would be
restricted as a result of rezoning.
"They live in apartments because it is close to work or school or
for economic reasons. Having chosen this dwelling for practical reasons,
they still are aware of the 'residential quality* of the Inner Sunset.
They enjoy the older structures, the diversity of the ethnic groups,
the personal touch from the smaller stores, the range of ages and occupa-
tions, and the feeling of a smaller neighborhood. They have an affinity
for the beauty of many of the homes here and some are hoping that some
day they will be in a position to have something similar. They also
enjoy the proximity of the Park.
"They are all too aware of the noise and parking problems attendant
upon high density living areas from first hand experience. They feel
that there are sufficient high density dwellings and urge that the
delicate status quo be maintained by re-zoning."
Mr. Steele presented his recommendation to the Commission as follows:
"The two applications for rezoning in the Inner Sunset now before
you have been analyzed with respect to the stated desires of the res-
idents, the predominant present uses in the area as determined by field
inspection check and Assessor's Records, the provisions of the city's
Master Plan, the effect that proposed zoning categories would have on
new development, the effect that interim zoning controls would have on
new development, the probabilities for demolition and replacement of
existing buildings, and the Residential Zoning Study presently under
I
. '. ,-■•■•■•■ '
■ :
■ [ "'
£ - V ■■'
■■.■'' <
■ ' '"■'■' '
. • a : ■ ■
- .
■
• ■
bKW '.
i
.
, ■ ■■■ ....
. '
.
■ ■■'.■■.-
h ■:■' a ■•■ ..
■ ■ .
i
■■■■■■..-
■ 1 J
! ■ • ' ■ ' ■ . " ■- ■
3 -■' ■ ''■'■" ■■ '
• ■
■
■
■ ■ ■
■■ is
- ■
• . ) , '
■* ' ■ : ' ■ i I ' .■ -. I ■
•••/■. o,09, ■ ' ' '
•• . ■ '•...
u gnJm . ■-•.'.
is i .- ,'b ..;..''- ■ '- - q •
i ■■
.'.■■.
." ..■■ ■ ■ ■ •
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -26- May 16, 1974
way, which will include the Inner Sunset district along with much of
the city. Another major factor in considering the applications is
the absence of a provision in ZM73.35 for consideration of inter-
mediate zoning classifications. Therefore, in instances where the
application calls for a rezoning from R-4 to R-2 or from R-3 to R-l,
we are not given the alternative in this application to consider an
intermediate zoning classification. (R-3 and R-3. 5 in the case of the
R-4 to R-2 request and R-2 in the case of the R-3 to R-l request) .
"Area South of Judah Street and the North Frontage Along Juda Street
"1. Area requested to be rezoned from R-3 to R-2, with the
exception of the Judah Street frontage and the University -owned block
between Fourth and Fifth Avenues, is recommended to be rezoned to R-2.
"Reasons:
"The area consists predominately of single and two-family
dwellings with some multiple family dwellings interspersed.
Further development of multiple family dwellings at R-3 densities
within this area would significantly alter the neighborhood's
low density residential character, as such buildings, even with
Interim Controls, would be out of character with the existing
smaller residences and present densities.
"2. Frontage along Kirkham Street between Seventh and Ninth
Avenues requested to be rezoned from R-3 to R-l is recommended to
remain R-3.
"Reasons;
"This strip consists of a mixture of one and two-family
dwellings with multiple family dwellings interspersed, and does
not differ significantly from surrounding areas being recommended
for reclassification from R-3 to R-2. This strip might also have
been appropriate for reclassification to R-2, but that alternative
is not permitted by the application.
"3. The frontage along both sides of Judah Street between Tenth
and Eleventh Avenues, between Seventh and Ninth Avenues, and on the
north side of Parnassus Avenue where it joins Judah Street between
Fourth and Fifth Avenues and the University-owned block south of Judah
Street between Fourth and Fifth Avenues, requested to be rezoned from
R-3 to R-2, are recommended to remain R-3.
"Reasons;
"There are presently a significant number of multiple family
dwellings along the Judah Street frontage, and it is quite an
active street. The streetcar line that serves the street west of
-
: ■ i '".''..'.•.. ; : . | ' ■
". : , .■ ■ . ■
■ I . ' ■
• •,;.:...■ • . ■ „■ • . .
.■.; ■ ■■(• I = si J , ■ ■ t ....
■-.-;:. ■:::- ■■■- '■ ■• .• ; !
• .'. ■-'.■::■■■■'''
,. EC ' :v ' . •
'--'■■■' i
: ' '■' a'JL ■ • ' ■ .
.-' . bfli ■ ',. : . ' ...• ■
' 8g ■
■'."■■■••■. .-■:■■..■ ■..
- ■" • • -• 3 . : .. ■
■ • .3 ..■ :g«J ' ■.■' rioua . . ,-
' •-. - ;•.....>- ■ . • .
..... -..•-■'
lUflSVS I •-.
•■•.,■'■■'-••'■ • ...'■'
-:-:■.
■■ ■ • i ' • .. ■ . ' ■ ■ ••
' . ■ ' -. •
■ ■ ■ oar e- . .
■■■ r-: . ■ / :•. ■ ■ . sd '■■ '
:. -■ . • • '.. ; s ■
".:•',••.■:.;.,.•• i
^ ' ' :■ - ■ j .„.; : .
•' - I a . ■■ / ; '■-'■'.'-'
nisi ■■:■■ ■ •• . ■' S7E
• ;■.,. ••• ■ . • .'■
• . • • ... , .. • ■ • • .•
- ••- ■'■ . ■ " . ■ ■• ., -..-'
:--" '■■''■•■ ■•■ -
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -27- May 16, 1974
Ninth Avenue, and commercial activity along the street create a
character which is consistent with retaining the R-3 zoning. In
short, land use on Judah Street cannot presently be characterized
as predominately one and two family residences.
"The University-owned block although containing a number of
occupied dwellings, is presently in predominately university use.
The University has further requested that its property not be
re zoned to R-2.
"4. Frontage along Sixth Avenue running from midblock between
Irving and Judah Streets to Locksley Avenue, requested to be rezoned
from R-2 to R-l is recommended to remain R-2.
"Reasons;
"This strip is presently a mixture of single and two-family
dwellings, having more single family structures than two-family.
However this area does not differ significantly from the surround-
ing R-2 districts, and it is highly unlikely that new development
will occur in an R-2 district, especially since these dwellings are
quite large and well -maintained. The R-2 zoning may allow the
creation of a second unit in some circumstances. This could give
the owners the opportunity to economically maintain their properties
while remaining as owner-occupants. Since the Planning Code re-
quires additional parking to be provided for such a new unit, such
conversions should not worsen the present parking conditions.
"5. The strip of Water Department Land located north of Lawton
Street between Seventh and Locksley Avenues, requested to be rezoned
from R-2 to P, is recommended to be rezoned to P.
"Reasons;
"This small strip of land is city-owned and is a continuation
of the open space to the south presently zoned P. This is an
appropriate rezoning for this city-owned parcel.
"Area Between Irving and Judah Streets
"1. The eastern frontage along Tenth Avenue, both frontages along
Eighth Avenue, and both frontages along Fourth Avenue including a
portion of the Parnassus Avenue frontage east of Fourth Avenue, requested
to be rezoned from R-3 to R-2, are recommended to be rezoned to R-2.
"Reasons;
"These areas consist predominately of single and two-family
dwellings with some multiple family dwellings interspersed. Further
development of multiple family dwellings at R-3 density within this
d : : • n
■ ■ o e • .... . • ■ ■ •• • -
.■-•.■■.>-.■/ ■ ' " - .
. ■ " ;" '■..■-■■'• I
■ " . ■■ ) M
■ ■ ;J .'■, - ! • isa '■ •
••.•-. • . '■ '■::•..■.■.•■ ' "' .
. ■
.'■■..■■. '
" ■ ■ .gunsvt •" ■ - i
.'-'"■■■'' • b B3 ' .
.... ' . ■ .
& WO lis Vfiffl §n ; ■ • • ' ' ...
'■'■<-"''■'•'•■ . ..
. ■ ■ • . ... . • •;._.. i . .
• ■•: lais .-■ to3t .-.■•, ■' •'
n . '
•■ • :• . '■ : - ' ;■■'
1
■■■■'■ ■ • • ' '. . ' ■
. . ' ■ ■■•-■"
.-. (no ' ..- : : ! .
'.. ' '■ -
...■:.. ■ ' _,
- ■ ' ffi! ' ■ ■■;■■ i '■ .,.:..'■,.• ; •-■•
is; 3 : -,. -. \. i \ ■ .- •• ■ .. ■ ■ • "
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -28- May 16, 1974
area would significantly alter the neighborhood's low density
residential character, as such buildings, even with Interim
Controls, would be out of character with the existing smaller
residences.
"2. The western frontage along Tenth Avenue, the western frontage
along Seventh Avenue and the University-owned property on the western
frontage of Third Avenue requested to be re zoned from R-3 to R-2 are
recommended to remain R-3.
"Reasons:
These areas along Tenth and Seventh Avenues consist predom-
inately of multiple family dwellings. Development of apartment
buildings has already changed the character of these areas and
interim controls under R-3 zoning should keep future development
at a reasonable scale.
"The University -owned property is presently in predominately
university use. A rezoning to R-2 would not appear to be necessary
or appropriate.
"3. Frontage along Irving Street between Third and Seventh Avenues,
requested to be rezoned from R-3 to R-2 is recommended to remain R-3.
"Reasons:
"Land-use is predominately multiple family dwellings along
the Irving Street frontage interspersed with several stores and
offices in addition to single and two-family residences. The
streetcar line serves this portion of Irving and the street is
very active. Transit accessability, existing land use, and activity
support retention of the R-3 district. This frontage is simply
not appropriate for R-2 zoning.
"4. The property of Laguna Honda Public School located between
Sixth and Seventh Avenues, requested to be rezoned from R-2 to P, is
recommended to be rezoned to P.
"Reasons:
"This is the appropriate zoning category for a public school
and a precedent has been established for such rezonings.
"Frontage of Lincoln Way and Tenth Avenue and West Side of Eight
Avenue North of Irving Street
"1. Frontage along Tenth Avenue and the western frontage of
Eight Avenue, requested to be rezoned from R-4 to R-2, are recommended
to remain R-4.
• " ■ . '
..:•'■.
■ .
■ ':.
• ■ " ' ■ •
'■■■•■ • '
■ ' > '■■;■' '■"'• .•'
. •; I . ■ .. ■ • i \ '■
•■-.';■■•::. ■ : OS E-J •
: • • ■ ■ : . ■ . ' ' ■
... .'',•:. ■ ' ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ! . .: aw. . ' ; :.'.':
■ ' - ; . ■' • ■ ' 5 •
''•'.■•■ '■ ■'• .
■ ■ .. . '.'•
■ ' •■•■'-.'.•.•■.'..
■ ' ' • ..-.■' . ■
■■ ■ ■ ■'■'. . ...■•■
..-■-. "..• f _ -■.;>■■- ■ ,■:
■'■-.'■■' ■• ■;.■■■:/' ..■. '■ ' .- : ■ '■ "
■" •■■ ■ . .: .
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -29- May 16, 1974
"Reasons ;
These frontages have already been developed with numerous
multiple family dwellings in recent years, many at R-4 densities,
and the streets no longer retain the character of predominately
single and two-family residential streets. Interim Controls
should keep future development at a reasonable scale. R-3 zoning
might be appropriate for this property, but as before, that
alternative is not permitted in this application.
"2. The Lincoln Way frontage, requested for reclassification
from R-4 to R-3 and R-2, is recommended to remain R-4.
"Reasons :
"Much of this frontage is already developed as multiple
family dwellings with a few gas stations and stores interspersed.
Much of the reasoning that applies for Tenth Avenue similarly
applies here. Master Plan recommendations should also be considered
which recommend intensification of density for this property which
overlooks Golden Gate Park. That portion of the frontage requested
for R-3 zoning is the most intensively developed of the frontage.
A rezoning of that portion of the frontage to R-3 while leaving
the less densely developed frontage in R-4 zoning would be in-
consistent.
"Area East of Eighth Avenue Between Irving Street and the Lincoln
Way Frontage
"1. The block between Seventh and Eighth Avenues excluding the
Lincoln Way frontage, requested to be rezoned from R-4 to R-2 is
recommended to be rezoned to R-2.
"Reasons:
"The area consists predominately of single and two-family
dwellings with some multiple family dwellings interspersed.
Further development of multiple family dwellings at R-4 densities
within this area would significantly alter the neighborhood's
character. Such buildings, even with Interim Controls, would be
out-of-scale with and would have a significantly higher density
than the smaller residences.
"2. Midblock areas in 8 of the blocks bordering Hugo Street bet-
ween Seventh Avenue and Argue llo Boulevard and the eastern frontage on
Arguello Boulevard, requested to be rezoned from R-3 to R-2 are
recommended to be rezoned to R-2.
. •: . ' —
..:.■-■
■ ■ .. . •.-...
•'■'•' - .
'■.;-. ■ •• '. I •: "■
• ''•'•.'■'■ ■ ' '' ' ' ' '
'■ - ■ ' . .:.■•..'
qj .'•■..-'• . ■■■
: - : " ! . .
• .■ .■.■'■;■:■..•'.■
• i '■ ■ ■.'■;■; i :■■■■■■■.■
.:■:'•. .
- ' - '• ': . . • ■ . •• ■ ' . ■ 10 ' • •
: ■- ■
■ ■ ■
■'.'_'.- '•'''- '■' ' ',....
■ • ■ :" ■.■•■. ri
■.■■'.-.:. '■ '
■
■
. . i • .
. -.!■:■ » i H ■ ■
■•'■'■: ; ./ ■- .:',.■■■'.■: • ' -"
■ ' ' '-■'..'.. TooJ ■'.:
... . ■ ■ -,-..- .. , ■■ . •
•''■■'.■:■■■ .
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -30- May 16, 1974
"Reasons :
"Although the corners of these blocks are generally developed
with multiple-family apartment buildings and stores, the raidblock
areas consist predominately of single and two family dwellings.
Furthermore, the streets have a quiet small-scale residential
character consistent with that of one and two family residence
neighborhoods. This mixture of one and two-family dwellings in
midblock areas with multiple dwellings and stores on the corners
would be desirable to preserve.
"3. Corner properties in blocks bordering Hugo Street, some
street frontages, plus the entire block between Sixth and Seventh
Avenues north of Hugo and the entire blocks between Third and Fifth
Avenues south of Hugo, requested to be rezoned from R-3 to R-2, are
recommended to remain R-3.
"Reasons:
"The corner properties and some excluded street frontages
consist predominately of multiple family dwellings and neighbor-
hood stores more consistent with that allowed under R-3 zoning
than R-2. The block between Sixth and Seventh Avenues and the
two blocks south of Hugo between Third and Fifth Avenues are simply
too dominated by multiple family dwellings to justify any reclas-
sification to R-2.
"4. The midblock area excluding corner properties between Fifth
and Sixth Avenues south of Hugo Street, requested to be rezoned from
R-3 to R-l is recommended to remain R-3.
"Reasons:
"The area requested for reclassification consists of almost
an even mixture of one, two, and three-family dwellings, quite
similar to other midblock areas along Hugo Street recommended
for reclassification to R-2. Less than 50% of the properties
involved contain single-family dwellings. For this reason and
the reasons given before concerning reclassification to R-l,
such reclassification would not be appropriate. While this area
might be appropriate for reclassification to R-2, that alternative
is not allowed in this application."
Commissioner Fleishhacker reviewed the options which were open to the
Commission and which included 1) disapproval of the application, 2) approval
of the application, 3) approval of the application in part and disapproval
in part, and 4) to take the matter under advisement and to initiate a new
application which would permit the Commission to consider intermediate
zoning categories; and he suggested that the alternative which would be most
consistent with good zoning and good planning might be the fourth one which
he had mentioned.
: ,
, .
, ■ as ■ ' lop id ..-. •
; i ': '■ :- " -
'.'..,! ..'.'■ ■ . i ' Bj ' '
■' '■' '•'..-.■ ' ' ■' '; l' " •
"' ' ""■ ' ' '
..-..•. .".:••.■•' '•■ , . ■
,
■ . ■ * 8 ■'"' ' } ■ •'''.
r ; :';, . bfli ' ''--■ 0 •''
[. | •
"
i ■ :
■
...
■
agni : •■■... ■■ o
■' '• ' ' '■
■■■.■' .'..."' • . ,'..-.
■' ■ ■-
" lOi
! ' IS : , ' . ■
'■ • -' ' •
• • • ' : . . •■■■•'...■: I
■ : ■• .'."■•■■■ , '. . .',,- xcj •.'..-■-■ o:
■ ■ ' . - pia •• , . • = ■
■ *■ ' . '. .' ' ■ ■ ■ ' ■■ ■■ '.,_-■.■■' . '■' I
..''■''.■ ■
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -31- May 16, 1974
Commissioner Mellon observed that the applicants had previously
indicated that they were not interested in intermediate zoning categories.
Edwin Williams, 1465 5th Avenue, stated that the subject applications
had been filed during the first week in November when the Interim Residential
Zoning Controls were not yet in effect and when it was assumed that those
controls would not apply to R-2 districts; and, as a result, ISAC had been
under considerable pressure to be very conservative in its re-zoning request.
Mention had been made of the possibility of intermediate zoning categories
only recently; and he and his associates had not felt that they could accede
to such recommendations without bringing the matter before the full member-
ship of their organization.
Vice-President Porter, emphasizing that the Interim Residential Zoning
Controls are now in effect and that no buildings had been constructed in the
subject neighborhood under those controls, asked if the applicants, given
those circumstances, would be satisfied with the recommendation which had
been made by the staff of the Department of City Planning. Mr. Williams
replied that the staff recommendation was complicated in nature; and he felt
that the best thing would be for the Commission to take the matter under
advisement so that he could discuss the issue further with members of his
organization.
Commissioner Ritchie stated that the things which he had heard during
the course of the meeting had made him feel that ISAC's program was better
thought out than the recommendations of the staff of the Department of City
Planning and that it had taken into account the character and needs of the
neighborhood. He believed that the Commission should do everything possible
to retain families with children in attractive neighborhoods; and, having
read the letters which had been received both in support of and in opposition
to the subject application, and having reviewed the number of names on the
petitions which had been filed in support of the proposal, he felt that the
application should be approved as submitted without change.
Vice-President Porter, speaking in defense of the staff and in support
of honest differences of opinion, stated that she had driven through the
Inner Sunset district with Mr. Steele at least four or five times; and she
had found the matter of the proposed re-zoning to be extremely complicated.
Under the circumstances, she felt that the staff had made an extremely
comprehensive analysis of the situation and had brought forth a reasonable
recommendation.
Commissioner Fleishhacker agreed that the matter was complicated; and,
in order for both the members of the Commission and the residents of the
community to digest the staff recommendation, he felt that it might be wise
to take the matter under advisement. In addition, he felt that the Commission
might wish to give further consideration to the possibility of initiating
another application which would allow consideration of intermediate zoning
categories.
'
:;
• . ' , ' •:'■'- ■' ' I • "
: .'-, [i : :.-■'■■
. ' ! . •;• 32 ! raib . i ■ - ' •
,. • 'a ' -. '" -' - ■ ..•,-''.-
'• ■ ■• ■ . ■:•- ■ , :>' : ' '.'.'■. - ■ ' ■ ■ ■■■■*■.
' ' ■ : .-'■'■ ' " ". '- '
i 31 a-
- • .- >sd '
:;.::•...'■' i
rl rii ...... op;
■.-..• ; v. , "
- . ; .. .6
9&1
■. 4'. ■ -■ ' ' r j i
■ ]
. ' . . . ,'
■■;'•"'. . . li '
:
• . . ■■-■■. .,-..'.•
1 -•'.•'■:•,,..'. ... .
• '■'..... ; ..... . ; a , . • • ■ ■ ■
ri: ": • . m bfl .'■.. ■ : t . . 1
••'■■■■ ■■■■■ :.:'.• ...-■..•■
■ ":-' ''..■■•■■. . ■
,■'•'...' I ;i . 1 •■ ■ [| ■' '
■ ' ' - ' 3fl :'■••'. - . ■ .
.:.;...'' •■ . ' ;.. • ■ . ■■ -\
■ - : bas Jed .. ■ ,-■•. ■ ■ . '
'•'■"■■■•• arf i ,■■,■■■■?
:--'■■■'■ .,_■-•
' ■' '■:'• ' '' ■ - ■
■
" ' r ' '- I !: .-.■ [a ■ . alaelik
' •'■ ' 1 "■ tm . Id ... • 11 1 '
• ' ■ 1 ■ : . •.:.-. da
': '' •
' -' .'. " ■ .'■■..' !
"'; ' • ...'.; ■-■•■' ;
,.■'■■'•'' ■ ' '
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -32- May 16, 1974
Vice-President Porter observed that the neighborhood would still be
in a position to file an application seeking intermediate zoning in those
areas where Mr. Steele had indicated that an intermediate zone might be
acceptable even if the Commission were to act on the applications at the
present time in accordance with Mr. Steele's basic recommendation.
After further discussion among members of the Commission, it was moved
by Commissioner Fleishhacker and seconded by Commissioner Mellon that the
applications be approved in part and disapproved in part as recommended by
Mr. Steele.
Commissioner Ritchie noted that he had already stated his position on
the matter; and he indicated that he intended to vote against the motion.
When the question was called, the Commission voted 5-1 to adopt
Resolution No. 7184, approving the subject applications in part and disap-
proving them in part as recommended by Mr. Steele. Commissioners Farrell,
Fleishhacker, Mellon, Porter, and Rueda voted "Aye"; Commissioner Ritchie
voted "No".
The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynn E. Pio
Secretary
and
Marie Zeller
Acting Secretary
• ■ . • ■ ■ ■ ( . - • ' • '"■ >' -
■ ■ • ■ .
. -. h ;..'-' '■ ■■ . res. ! ' . ■ 915 - ■
-, Uiw sonsfar'io:
. ' ' ■ ■ 1Q
••'■''■'"•■■' ' - ' ' . ' . • ' •
.-.■■■,.■:■....■ . I . .. . • ■
■:-. : .■ ■ - ' ' '
■' ' • ' ' ■' ■ '■■. ■ ■
■•'••-•■,- •-. ... ■ bne ...
• ••. ..■■,...... . .. > ■ . . '
...'■-• . . .
• ic . ■■ . " •
■ •
-
.
SAN FRANCISCO
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of the? Regular Meeting held Thursday, May 30, 1974*
The City Planning Commission met pursuant to notice on Thursday, May 30,
1974, at 1:30 p.m. at 100 Larkin Street.
PRESENT: Walter S. Newman, President; Mrs. Charles B. Porter, Vice-
President; John C. Farrell, Mortimer Fleishhacker, Thomas J.
Mellon, and John Ritchie, members of the City Planning Commis-
sion.
ASSENT : Hector E. Rueda, member of the City Planning Commission.
The staff of the Department of City Planning was represented by Allan
B. Jacobs, Director of Planning; R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director -
Implementation (Zoning Administrator); George A. Williams, Assistant Director -
Plans and Programs; Selina Bendix, Environmental Review Officer; and Lynn E.
Pio, Sccr3ta-*y.
Dor.ald Cancer represented the San Francisco Examiner; and Larry Liebert
represented the S3n Francisco Chronicle.
1:30 p.m. ^iela Trip
Members cf the Cu^mission and staff departed from 100 Larkin Street at
1:30 p.m. to taKc a firld trip to properties scheduled for consideration
during the Commission Meeting to be held on June 6, 1974.
2:30 p.m. 100 Larkin Street
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved by Commissioner Porter, seconded by Commissioner Fleishhacker.
and carried unanimously that the minutes of the meetings of April 25, May 2
and 9, 1974, be approved as submitted.
CURRENT MATTERS
Allan E. Jacobs, Director of Planning, informed the Commission that the
Board of Supervisors, meeting on Tuesday, had unanimously approved the Pacific
Heights and Turk-Rossi le-zoning proposals as recommended by the Commission.
Action on the Nob Hill re-zoning was postponed for two weeks.
The Director reported that a law suit had been filed challenging the
City's adoption of the Environmental Impact Report and granting of conditional
use authorization for the expansion of St. Mary's Hospital.
The Director advised the Commission of action taken by the Board of Super-
visors on che Department of City Planning's budget for the next fiscal year.
After discussion, Commissioner Fleishhacker requested that an analysis be pre-
pared of changes in the Department's budget and revenues during the past few
years .
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -2- May 30, 1974
George A. Williams, Assistant Director - Plans and Programs, gave the
following report:
"The Rehabilitation Assistance Program - whose acrwnym is RAP -
has been a major element of our housing work program for over a year.
As you know it has involved passage of State legislation, an amendment
to the Charter, and after an extended drafting period, adoption of an
ordinance .
"Since adoption of the ordinance the Department has been doing a
series of things:
"We have been working with BBI, RE Department and others to develop
the guidelines under which the program will operate. These guidelines
specify the various procedures to be followed in planning public improve-
ments, making loans, providing relocation assistance and so on. Those
guidelines are close to being completed.
"We have been working with the City Attorney and the City's bond
council in developing the resolution for issuance of the bonds. This
resolution indicates how the bond funds are to be managed and how various
elements of the program are to be financed. That resolution has now been
adopted by the Board of Supervisors and a test suit will now be brought
to obtain a court determination regarding the validity of the bond issue.
"We have also been working to get the two carryover areas from the
old FACE program—the Inner Richmond and the Upper Ashbury—designated
as RAP areas. The Board of Supervisors has recently designated the
Inner Richmond and has before it a recommendation that Upper Ashbury be
designated. There is some neighborhood opposition to the Upper Ashbury
designation although it is our judgment that there is majority neighbor-
hood support. The Board will act on the designation question next week.
"The next steps after designation of the areas will be the election
of a CAC in each area with which we would work to develop a program of
public improvements, such as street tree planting, burial of utilities,
protected residential street treatments, etc.
"We have also been conducting, at the request of the Board, a study
of the feasibility of carrying out a RAP program in Chinatown.
"We have had several meetings with some block clubs in Bernal
Heights who are very desirous of having a program in the area south of
Cortland Avenue and east of Holly Park.
"We have also had several other expressions of interest from other
neighborhoods such as Bayview and Excelsior.
"If the Upper Ashbury is designated by the Board of Supervisors,
it will be several years, at the current level of funding of inspection
personnel, before the program could be extended into new areas. As you
may recall, the Housing Strategy and Programs report which you adopted
last February called for an expansion of the RAP program as a key element
itaUTES OF THE REGULAR FETING -3- MAY 23, 1974
in the effort to conserve and rehabilitate SF neigiiborhoods . The report called
for a doubling of the size of the program over the next year and it is hoped
that some of the community development block grant funds, if they become
a reality, will be used for that purpose. Ue will be working to that
end in the coming months."
The Director reminded the Commission of the Special Meeting scheduled' ne::t Wed-
nesday afternoon at 5:00 pm when the Commission will sit jointly with the Police
Commission for a public hearing on the Police Facilities Plan. The meeting will be
held in Room 551 of the Hall of Justice.
Acting on the recommendation of the Director, the Commission approved the
scheduling of a special meeting on Wednesday, July 10 at 3:00 pm for presentation
of the proposed Community Safety Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
PRESENTATION OF REPORT ON DEPARTMENTAL FEE STRUCTURE
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director-Implementation (Zoning Asministrator) ,
gave the following report:
"The following is in response to concern expressed by members of the
2oard of Supervisors and the City Planning Commission that the fees levied
by the Department are below reasonable or required levels.
,:There are two distinct types of fees levied by the Department of
City Planning: filing fees and full reimbursement fees. The first type
is established by the City Planning Code Sections 300.1(e), 1012(a) and
(b) , and must be collected prior to 'accepting an application for filing.'
Although these fees are not intended to defray the full costs of process-
ing, which are considered general costs of government, they do help cover
operational expenses. Furthermore, while it would not be appropriate to
set fees which would deter citizens from filing reasonable requests, it
would seem that filing fees should be periodically adjusted to reflect
such things as inflation and the cost of living, and should be sufficiently
high so as to discourage frivolous requests.
"In contrast, the second category of fees, provided for in the Calif-
ornia Environmental Quality Act and established in Chapter 31 of the City's
Administrative Code, are required for environmental reviews and are in-
tended to defray the entire cost of processing those reviews.
"FILING FEES
At present, the following fees are charged by the Department:
Reclassifications $50
Conditional Uses $50
Setback Ordinances $50
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -A- May 30> L974
(Filing Fees, con;.)
Variances ^5U
Variances , less than 10T4 $25
Landmarks $z->
Historical District $50
ma
Inasmuch as these fees were set in 1960 (zoning) and 1967 (land-
er -s), it is not surprising that they represent only a small part of
today's total processing cost. Therefore, it is recommemded that the
fees for this filing of applications with the Department be increased
as follows:
Reclassifications $100
Conditional Uses $100
Setback Ordinances $100
Variances $100
Variances, less than 10% $50
Landmarks $50
Historic Districts $100
"ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FEES
At present, the following fees are levied by the Office of
Environmental Review in accordance with the Administrative Code:
Environmental (Initial) Evaluation $50
Environmental Impact Report $150
Appeals to City Planning Commission
on findings $25
Excepting appeals, these fees are substantially below actual processing
cost.
Environmental Evaluations:
The Department processes about 300 environmental evaluation cases
per year, at an average cost per case of $81 for staff time, advertis-
ing and attributable overhead. It is recommended that the fee be
raised from $50 to $85 to allow for salary increases already approved
and other probable increases in cost.
Environmental Impact Reports:
The Department handles an average of 24 environmental impact
reports per year, of which 5 are for public projects and 19 are for
private.
IIINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -5- May 30, 1974
"The public projects are quite variable in nature, and have required
from 37 to 370 hours of staff time. Under the circumstances, it is clearly
not possible to establish an equitable flat fee for public environmental
impact reports. Therefore, it is recommended that an open-ended work
order procedure be set up so that actual costs of staff time and overhead
may be recovered. This would currently result in a charge of $12.36 per
hour. We have attempted to determine the actual costs to the Department
on the basis of the relative amounts of time spent on environmental impact
report review by staff members at different levels plus appropriate overhead
costs.
"It would be possible to maintain the flexibility required to cover
actual costs overtime if the hourly charge were not placed in the Admin-
istrative Code. The City Attorney has suggested the possibility that
the Code be amended to provide that the Planning Commission be delegated
authority by the Board of Supervisors to determine this change. Once the
Commission approved the formula for establishing the charge, we could
then administratively adjust it as costs vary, without having to go to
the Commission each time conditions change.
"While the private project environmental impact reports also vary
in time requirements, they do not have the same range of variation as do
public projects. There is no more than 107» variation in the cost per
case for private projects, and therefore it is recommended that a new fee
be established on an averaged flat rate basis. Present costs for private
environmental impact reports average $263 per case. A fee of $275 would
allow a small rrargin for probable increases in cost.
"In appeal cases, there is not sufficient experience to establish
a fully responsive figure. It would appear that the fee now set is quite
close to actual requirements and therefore no change is suggested at this
time.
"It is recommended that the Administrative Code be amended to reflect
the following fee schedule:
Initial Evaluation $85
Private Environmental Impact Report $275
Public Environmental Impact Report Work Order
Appeal $25
"It is recommended the Zoning Administrator be instructed to prepare
appropriate legislation for amendment of the City Planning Code to re-
flect the changes in fees described above for zoning and landmarks mat-
ters and to set a date and time for the required public hearing before
the Commission.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -6- May 30, 1974
"Further, it is recommended that the Director be instructed to
forward proposed legislation to change the fees of the Office of En-
vironmental Review, after consultation with the City Attorney, for
consideration by the Board of Supervisors as an amendment to Chapter
31 of the Administrative Code."
Commissioner Porter remarked that it seemed to her that neighborhood groups
which appeal a negative declaration issued by the staff of the Department of City
Planning and succeed in obtaining a requirement for an Environmental Impact Re-
port should be required to pay the fees for the report instead of the developer.
Mr. Steele replied that such an approach is not possible under California law.
Commissioner Porter then suggested that it might be wise to raise the fee
for an appeal of a negative declaration to $50.00.
Commissioner Ritchie felt that the fee for an initial environmental evalua-
tion should be $100 rather than $85, that the fee for a private environmental
impact report should be $300 rather than $275, and that the fee for appeals should
be $50 rather than $25.
Commissioner Fleishhacker observed that even the fee structure which had been
recommended by Mr. Steele would have the effect of penalizing people with lesser
financial means; and, as a case in point, he noted that all projects which would
not be categorically exempt would be subject to an $G5 initial evaluation fee.
The Director stated that he could appreciate the point which was being made
by Commissioner Ritchie; however, he felt that the lower fee schedule which had
been proposed by Mr. Steele would have the psychological effect of encouraging
the staff of the Department of City Planning to be more efficient and to do their
work within that cost structure.
After further dl!scuss^«ft it was moved by Commissioner Ritchie, seconded by
Commissioner Fleishhacker and carried 5-1 that the Zoning Administrator be instruct-
ed to prepare appropriate legislation for amendment of the City Planning Code to
-reflect the proposed changes in fees for zoning and landmarks matters and to set a
date and time for a public hearing on those matters. The Commission also instruct-
ed the Director to forward proposed legislation to the Board of Supervisors which
would change the fees of the Office of Environmental Review. Commissioners Farrell,
uieif, ker' Mallon> Newman and Ritchie Voted "Aye'.' Commissioner Porter voted
No.
PRESENTATION OF REVISED LISTING OF CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
Selina Bendix, Environmental Review Officer, summarized a memo which she had
Prepared to explain changes being proposed in the local categorical exemptions in
oraer to bring the local ordinance into conformity with revised State guidelines.
The memo is available in the files of the Department of City Planning.
1INUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -7- May 30, 1974
After discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Ritchie, seconded by Commission-
er Porter, and carried unanimously that the Director be instructed to set a date
Eor a public hearing on this matter.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynn E. Pio
Secretary
DOCUMENTS DEPTi
SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC LIBRARY
SAN FRANCISCO
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of the Special Meeting held Wednesday, June 5, 1974.
The City Planning Commission met pursuant to notice on Wednesday,
June 5, 1974, at 5:00 p.m. in Room 551 at the Hall of Justice.
PRESENT: Walter S. Newman, President; Mrs. Charles B. Porter,
Vice-President; John C. Farrell, Thomas J. Mellon, and
Hector E. Rueda, members of the City Planning Commission.
ABSENT: Mortimer Fleishhacker and John Ritchie, members of the
City Planning Commission.
Dr. Washington E. Garner, President, and Marvin E. Cardoza, member of
the Police Commission, were also present.
The staff of the Department of City Planning was represented by Allan
B. Jacobs, Director of Planning; George A. Williams, Assistant Director -
Plans and Programs; Lucian Blaze j, City Planning Coordinator; and Lynn E.
Pio, Secretary.
PUBLIC HEARING ON THE POLICE FACILITIES ELEMENT OF THE COMPRE-
HENSIVE PLAN — A PROPOSAL FOR CITIZEN REVIEW.
Dr. Garner made the following introductory remarks:
"I would like to welcome you all to the Police Commission
chambers, and in particular, I would like to extend my welcome
to Mr. Newman, President of the Planning Commission, and the
other Planning Commission members who will be meeting with us
in joint session to hear public testimony on the Police Facil-
ities Plan. I look forward to hearing what the community has
to say.
"In light of the fact that the Planning Commission will
eventually take official action on this plan, while the Police
Commission may only adopt the plan as its policy, I would like
to relinquish chairmanship of this joint meeting of our two com-
missions to Mr. Newman, and it is with pleasure that I do so."
President Newman then made the following remarks:
"On behalf of the Planning Commission, I would like to thank
both President Garner and Commissioner Cardoza for sharing this
meeting with us and I welcome those who have come to participate
in these hearings.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 2 - JUNE 5, 1974
"This joint commission meeting is the first hearing on the
'Police Facilities Plan1 which was presented at a joint meeting
of our two Commissions six weeks ago on April 25th. The purpose
of this meeting is to hear public comment or testimony on the
draft plan. Chief Scott, Captain Sully and Police Department
staff, together with Planning Department staff are also here to'
listen to public testimony so that valid concerns expressed can
be incorporated into the final plan recommendations. If time
permits, questions will be ansxrered at the end of the meeting.
In fairness to those who wish to speak, however, we will post-
pone discussion until that time.
"If you wish to speak, please fill out a card and submit
it to the staff members who are circulating in the audience,
or to the Secretary of the Commission.
"Before beginning the hearing, Mr. Jacobs, the Director
of the City Planning Department, has some comments-
The Director read the following prepared statement:
"As Mr. Newman mentioned, on April 25th the Department of
City Planning presented the draft, 'Police Facilities Plan,'
to both the Police and City Planning Commissions. The purpose
of this plan, consistent with the Planning Department's Charter
responsibilities, is to develop a plan and long-range improve-
ment program for police facilities. The Police Department's
Bureau of Planning and Research collaborated wi th us in devel-
oping this plan.
"The scope of this plan is limited to police facilities,
since public facilities, their location, distribution, use and
design are the primary concern of the Department of City Plan-
ning. Police operations and services planning were not within
the scope of this study since this is not a Charter responsibil-
ity of the Department of City Planning. However, in order to be
responsive to possible changes in police operations and services,
one basic objective of the facilities plan was to maintain flex-
ibility so that future police service and operations changes
can be accommodated. I feel the draft plan is responsive in
this regard and a valid document that can serve as a guide for
facility improvement as service changes are made.
"As has been stressed, the 'Police Facilities Plan1 under
discussion today is a proposal for citizen review, which means
that both the objectives, policies, criteria and program section
will be revised on the basis of comments received from individuals
and community groups. After the plan has been revised, the objec-
tives, policies and criteria section will be proposed for adoption
by the City Planning Commission, and the program section will be
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 3 - JUNE 5, 1974
presented for Commission endorsement. The Police Commission may
adopt the revised plan and program as its police for police
facilities.
"I would now like to discuss the details of the citizen re-
view process and dissemination of plan recommendations. Since
the initial public presentation of the plan on April 25th, over
twenty additional presentations were made throughout the com-
munity with total attendance in excess of 600 citizens. In
addition, over 500 police officers have been given summary
briefings on the plan content. These presentations were in
response to our initial mailing of over 300 copies of the plan
to our listing of community groups. At that time, we indicated
that staff would be pleased to present the plan at neighborhood
meetings. An additional 200 copies of the plan were distributed
at community meetings so that committees could be formed to
study and comment on the plan. Over 200 copies have been dis-
tributed to police officers, principally at district stations.
The remaining copies of our initial run of 1,000 have been dis-
tributed to individuals, our City libaries, and the media who
have given coverage to the plan.
"At today's hearing, members of the staff will be taking
notes on all the testimony offered. Following the final hearing,
ve will evaluate the comments and suggestions received. The
Planning Department will prepare a summary paper of these com-
ments, indicate staff response to them,
and recommend revisions to the plan where appropriate.
This paper will form the basis for the revisions to the Plan.
The revised version of the 'Police Facilities Plan' will be
presented to the Police and Planning Commissions this summer
for adoption at that time.
"I would like to point out again that it is the objectives
and policies section, the section printed on blue paper in the
report, that will be revised and presented to the Planning Com-
mission for adoption. I therefore urge you to pay particular
attention to this section and to address your comments to its
contents and the alternative plans and maps which will form the
Police Facilities Section of the community facilities element
of the Master Plan.
"We recognize that we are dealing with a sensitive and
complex community issue. The temptation to stray from the
issue before us will often arise and I therefore again stress
that this plan deals with the objectives, policies, and cri-
teria for the location, use, and design of police facilities
within the physical and social setting of San Francisco and
comments should focus on this area of coueern.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 4 - JUNE 5, 1974
"As Mr. Newman indicated, if time permits, staff will be
prepared to respond to issues and comments raised in the tes-
timony. In the interest of time and fairness to those who
wish to testify, we will do this at the end of the meeting
when everyone has had a chance to spealc
"At this time, I would like to turn the meeting back to
Mr. Newman who will call on those who wish to speak."
John Macauley, Executive Secretary of Save Our Neighborhoods, stated
that his organization had originally been formed to protest the closing of
Park and Potrero Stations; and, after a successful fight to keep those sta-
tions, the organization had been deactivated. However, with the publica-
tion of the draft of the Police Facilities Element of the Master Plan, the
group Tfas reactivated. He remarked that the report contained no comments
whatsoever on reorganization of the Police Deparrment; and he believed that
police community relations should have been given first priority. He then
read a statement which had been distributed by his organization, as follows:
"Save Our Neighborhoods ("SON"), the city-wide coalition who
successfully brought about the reopening of Park and Potrero Police
Stations, has been reactivated because of a new danger to police
protection for citizens and comprehensive police community rela-
tions.
"A 'Police Facilities' Plan, drawn up without neighborhood
input, jointly by the San Francisco Planning Department and the
Police Administration, calls for the immediate closing of two
police stations - Northern and Ingleside - and threatens the
eventual existence of all neighborhood police stations.
"Further, this ill advised and expensive 'Plan', which ap-
parently began to evolve immediately after 114,000 San Franciscans
voted in a Charter Amendment calling for nine neighborhood police
stations in nine police districts, indulges totally in upside
down priorities. It calls for buildings of brick and mortar of
different kinds while it does not address itself to any of the
following:
... the lack of implementation of Police Reorganization
voted by the people three years ago.
... the escalation of murders, burglaries, robberies,
kidnappings, rapes and other felony crimes in the
street.
. . . the widening communications gap betws#n people and
police without which the former cannot function
effectively and the latter cannot receive either
effective protection or police justice.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 5 - JUNE 5, 1974
Vfe call on the Police Administration and the San Francisco Plan-
ning Department to totally scrap this ill advised Plan and to
begin a grassroots program with the neighborhoods of San Fran-
cisco to build a humane and effective Police Department regarded
with respect and cooperated with by a free and involved citizenry."
Helen Ericson, representing the Fillmore Merchants Association, stated
that her neighborhood would be at a loss if neighborhood policemen were to
be taken away.
Sandy Spitzer, representing the Marina Merchants Association, felt that
the Department of City Planning had produced an excellent report; however,
until such time as things become more constant, she believed that Northern
Station should remain open.
Henrietta Abrams, founder of Save Our Neighborhoods, stated that the
members of her organization did not wish to lose any district police stations,
especially the Park Station.
George Duesdiecker, representing Save Lake Merced, stated that he was
basically pleased with the draft report insofar as it took the position that
the police pistol range at Lake Merced should not be expanded and that that
facility should eventually be phased out; however, he felt that the plan
should be more explicit along those lines. He also suggested that the re-
port should include a definitive statement to the effect that no open space
land will be used for police facilities in the future. While he realized
that other plans which have been published by the Department of City Plan-
ning had addressed themselves to the preservation of existing open space,
he believed that it would be a good idea to include such a statement in the
police facilities plan, also.
Raymond Tinkerman, a member of the Northern Station Police Community
Relation's Committee and a representative of the Marina Merchants Associa-
tion, stated that people in his neighborhood want to keep Northern Station
open.
Louise Bertola, 2293 Third Street, stated that people in her neighbor-
hood had fought to keep Potrero Station open; and, in view of the fact that
the people had voted to reopen the station, she did not understand why the
Department of City Planning had published a plan which seemed to call for
removal of the station. While she was in favor of removing the police facil-
ities from Lake Merced, she believed that all 9 district stations should re-
main open. She agreed with the staff that some of the stations are not sit-
uated in the right place and that they should be relocated; however, she
emphasized that the number of district stations should not be reduced.
Gerald E. Parmenter, Vice-President of the Home Owners Tax Control As-
sociation, stated that the members of his organization were 1007o against
closing any district police stations. He remarked that a move is being made
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 6 - JUNE 5, 1974
all over the country to federalize police departments; and he felt that
heading in such a direction would be most inappropriate given present cir-
cumstances. If the city had accepted Federal money for the Police Facil-
ities Study, the city will soon find out that it is in a position of having
to take orders from the Federal Government. He stated that the Federal
Government is already in debt; and the citizens of the country are being
forced to pay taxes to cover that debt. He suggested that the Police Facil-
ities Plan should be tabled for two years because of the things which are
presently going on in the country; and, at the end of that time, he felt
that the Commissioners would not want to make the changes recommended in
the report.
Howard C. Thompson, a member of the Northern Station Police Community
Relations Committee, read the following letter which he had previously sent
to the staff of the Department of City Planning:
"Having conducted a meeting of Northern District Police
Community Relations, with 44 in attendance, including merchants
(Fillmore, Page-Laguna, Marina, Pacific Heights and Hayes Valley
groups), tenants, residents and property owners, representing
approximately 70,000 people within this area, it was unanimously
approved that the Northern District Station, under Plan 8 or 9
of Police Facilities Program is maintained until such time as a
new Northern District Station, centrally located in this area,
can be built — boundaries to remain the same.
This conclusion was arrived at by the fact that:
1 (1) We are in an extremely high crime area.
(2) Density of population (15,000 plus sq. miles) ap-
proximately twice the density of any other city.
(3) The police would lose contact with the people,
as we are quite aware of the fact that good
police community relations are essential to a
good, smooth running district.
'The group felt Police Facilities Study (1 thru 7) would make the
area too large for personal contact and mutual trust between
Police and Community.
"We would like to thank Lt. Frank Jordan and Mr. Lucien Blazej
for the clear and concise program they set up, which required
very little cross questioning. We feel the cost, as against
safety factor, is of little concern at this time, as Northern
is one of the highest density population in the nation.
In closing, we have excellent rapport with Northern District
Station, as Capt. Flynn and Sgt. Daroas are two dedicated police
officers.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 7 - JUNE 5, 1974
A. R. Roderick, a member of the Taraval District Police Community
Relations Committee, stated that the members of his committee had requested
that at least one evening meeting be held on the Police Facilities Plan; and
he noted that evening hearings had been scheduled as other elements of the
Master Plan were being considered. He stated that the members of his com-
mittee regarded the draft report as the third attempt to convince the people
of San Francisco that district stations should be reduced in number and per-
haps consolidated into a single facility; and they felt that what the city
really needs is more district stations, perhaps utilizing the "store front"
approach. In that regard, he noted that the staff's report contained a map
which divided the city into 14 basic geographic districts. A few of the
other members of his committee felt that the draft report was aimed more at
what people can do for the Police Department than at what the Police Depart-
ment can do for the people. The report also seemed to be "plant-oriented"
rather than "product-oriented". Finally, the members of his committee were
of the opinion that people in San Francisco may well be willing to purchase
and pay for more police facilities. In conclusion, and by way personal com-
ment, Mr. Roderick stated that the negative comments which he had made on
behalf of his committee were not intended to express a dislike for other
aspects of the plan. He believed that the plan was basically a good one and
that it constituted a necessary step forward. However, the approach taken
by the staff of the Department of City Planning seemed to stress efficiency;
and he felt that effectiveness should be considered, also. He remarked that
it is possible to have one without the other.
Julius Zamacona, a member of the Excelsior - Outer Mission Police Com-
munity Relations Committee, remarked that crime has increased in all dis-
tricts in the city; and he believed that all 9 of the existing district sta-
tions should be retained. When Southeast station and Park station were
closed, there were supposedto be 150 more policemen on the streets; but their
presence had not been evident to him.
Reverend Lyle Grosjean remarked that the staff report contained a multi-
plicity of plans from which the public was being asked to choose; but the
report did not contain the data needed for the choice. He emphasized that
the voters had adopted a proposition calling for reorganization of the Police
Department. Since that study had not yet been undertaken, and since it is
still not known how the Police Department will be organized, it seemed to
him that the staff's plan for housing the Police Department was premature.
He remarked that the staff report seemed to lean very heavily towards a 7
district station concept; and he noted that a statement contained on page 20
of the report read as follows: "...There is no apparent benefit to aban-
doning district stations and adopting the area precinct or the centralized
concept if the number of stations is 7." He believed that the desire of
the people of San Francisco is for more rather than less district stations;
and he was confident that a direct vote would show that to be the case. He
stated that residents of the Haight Ashbury district resent it when certain
parts of the police force come into their neighborhood; and they feel that
Park Station is symbolic of the neighborhood's right to police itself.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 8 - JUNE 5, 1974
While the report which had been prepared by the staff of the Department of^ City
Planning provided a lot of information, it did not give the "whole picture";
and he felt that the plan for reorganization of the Police Department should
have been prepared first.
Gilbert Brigham read the following statement which had been prepared by
Assemblyman Willie L. Brown, Jr.
"I have reviewed the 'Police Facilities' report prepared by City
Planning and the Police Department and welcome this opportunity to
comment on it.
"Let me say at the outset that I shared the opinions of thousands
of San Franciscans who have rejected previous proposals to close police
stations in our city. The basis for my opinion was my strong convict-
ion that our citizens will be better served if the police are closer
to the communities. This goal cannot be accomplished by any plans
which have centralization as a key feature.
"When I examined this proposal, however, I was astonished by the
number of questions it raised. For example, why wasn't New York
listed in the chart of the largest cities? Why was San Francisco
compared to the largest cities instead of to cities of similar pop-
ulation or size? Why were San Diego, San Antonio, Indianapolis and
and Memphis excluded from this comparison since they have larger pop-
ulations than both New Orleans and St. Louis which were included?
Why were not actual census figures used instead of estimated popula-
tions? This questionable method of statistic gathering and present-
ation can only lead me to conclude that conscious efforts were made
to dupe the public into believing there is some justification for
closures.
"I must also comment on another area which generates a con-
siderable amount of skepticism. This has to do with the projected
employment of female officers on our police force.
"I was amazed to read that there is some expectation for 400
female officers in the San Francisco Police Department and that
because of this expectation 'extensive renovations of facilities'
would be required. I find it very difficult to believe that this
projection can ever be realized. When one considers the fact that
only 11 women were reported as being members of the SFPD last year
and that no U.S. city has reached the 400 figure, it is unlikely
that San Francisco will lead the way.
"In addition thereto, the SFPD has taken measures to ensure
that few females will ever be hired. They have promoted a minimum
height requirement which exceeds that of the average female. They
are also contemplating a physical agility exam with such rigid
strength tests, that most males cannot even pass it.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 9 - JUNE 5, 1974
In summary, I have found no compelling facts in the 'Police
Facilities report which would reverse my opposition to station
closures. I have, on the other hand, found it to be very convin-
cing evidence that constant vigilance must be maintained in order
that the expressed wishes of San Franciscans are not circumvented.
My only recommendation, therefore, is that our Police Department
seriously consider using neighborhood facilities similar to the
practice in Indianapolis."
Helen Malasig, 143 DeMontfort Avenue, felt that the stations which have
already been built should continue to be used. She stated that she was op-
posed to further research on Police Community Relations; and she believed
that the Chief of Police should be elected so that the people could be sure
that they would be satisfied.
Charles Wambeke, representing the Naples-Vienna Street Block Club, stated
that most of the members of his organization like the representation they are
getting from Ingleside station and would not want to have the station closed.
In any case, he believed that policemen should be out on their beats and that
they should become familiar with people in the neighborhoods in which they
are working.
Charles A. Thielen, representing the Fishermen's Wharf Merchants Asso-
ciation, stated that the members of his organization were pleased that the
staff report had not recommended any change in the status of Central Station;
however, they felt that any plan which would reduce the total number of dis-
trict stations in the city would ultimately affect them; and, therefore, they
would oppose such a plan. He remarked that the Fisherman's Wharf area has
also had the benefit of protection from the Harbor Patrol which is operated
by the Port Commission; however, in view of the fact that that operation is
being phased out, lie felt that any change in police services should result in
the opening of another district station in their area rather than in the
reduction of the total number of district stations.
Kamini K. Gupta, representing the Marina Merchants Association and the
Marina Lions Club, stated that people in his neighborhood had urged the re-
activation of the North-end station. They felt that there should be more
direct police surveillance of their neighborhood; and Northern Station is
located too far awau to fulfill that function. Additional security is par-
ticularly needad on weekends. In conlusion, he stated that there ought to
be more police facilities in the northern part of the city so that police cars
can avoid the barriers of hills and heavy traffic.
Jack Tufts, representing the Industrialists Association of San Francisco,
stated that he had participated in the founding of 'Save Our Neighborhoods'
two years ago in an effort to keep two districts stations open. He stated
that he had no desire to run the Police Department; however, the people want
protection and they still have not obtained it. If more policemen are placed
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 10 - JUNE 5, 1974
on beats, and if circumstances change significantly, he felt that people would
probably have noobjection to closing of some of the district stations; how-
ever, he believed that all existing district stations should remain open for
the time being.
Eugene K. Mayo, a member of the Mission Police Community Relations Com-
mittee, felt that a great deal had been achieved through Police Community
Relations work.
Lloyd Dostetter stated that his girlfriend wonders why she has not been
arrested for jay -walking.
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, stated that the Police Facilities
Study had been financed locally with funds being provided by the Police De-
partment and the Department of City Planning; and he indicated that no Fed-
eral funds at all had been used for the study. The study itself had been
started initially about four years ago prior to the time that the citizens
had voted for the reopening of Southeast and Park Stations. He then read
the following statement:
"I would like to clarify the plan's position regarding district
stations, since there has been considerable confusion on this issue.
The plan calls for retention of district stations for San Francisco.
Concerning the number of district stations, the plan points out that
a relationship and possible trade-off exists between the number of
district stations and the number of police officers available for
street patrol work since resources required for building and the
administrative staffing of stations could be shifted to improve
patrol services to the community, if the number of station build-
ings is reduced.
"Based on operations, service loads, and the City's urban
character, seven district stations properly located would be suf-
ficient to meet patrol force requirements. However, this should
be weighed against community desires and willingness to pay for
the construction and staffing of district stations. The differ-
ence in cost between nine or seven stations is $1,200,000 or
equivalent to the salaries and fringe benefits of 20 police of-
ficers. The existing level of service would not be effected,
but rather improved. The plan states, and I quote, 'New stations
should be designed and located to accommodate a possible shift to
a seven-district station plan. However, until there is community
support for such a move, the present number of district stations-
nine — should be retained.'
"The program section reflects the foregoing policy by pro-
viding for a possible nine, eight, or seven-station plan. In
order to implement an. eight or. s«vea-sta.tion plan, the phasing
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 11 - JUNE 5, 1974
out of Northern and Ingleside Stations is suggested, however, and
I stress this point, only with community support. Community con-
cerns are safeguarded by the recent Charter amendment that re-
quires Board of Supervisors' approval of any action affecting dis-
trict stations, including the opening, closing, consolidation or
relocation of district stations. This plan serves only as a pol-
icy guide-the Board of Supervisors are the ones who set policy in
the name of the people of San Francisco."
Concluding his comments, the Director conceded that it might seem logical
that a plan for reorganization of the Police Department should have been avail-
able before the Police Facilities Study was undertaken. However, physical
facilities tend to last a long time; and he believed that one could expect
that police operations might change 3 or 4 times during the life of a building.
Commissioner Cardoza informed the audience that a plan for reorganization
of the Police Department will be undertaken when the project is budgeted.
Lieutenant Jordan of the Police Department informed the Commissioners
that representatives of the Cayuga Block Club had planned to attend the
hearing but that they would not be present until 7:00.
Commissioner Porter suggested that the Commissioners might wish to
schedule an evening meeting to receive comments on the Police Facilities re-
port if it appears that there are a substantial number of people who are not
able to get to afternoon meetings.
President Newman announced that the public hearing on this matter would
be continued until June 13, 1974, at 4:00 p.m. in Room 282, City Hall.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynn E. Pio
Secretary
»'74
JUL 19
SAN FRANCISCO
CITY PLANNING CO:iiiISSION
ixinutes of the Regular Meeting held Thursday, June 6, 1974.
The City Planning Commission met pursuant to notice on Thurs-
day, June 6, 1974, in Room 232, City Hall, at 2:45 p.m.
PRESENT: Ualter S. Newman, President; Mrs. Charles B. Porter,
Vice-President; John C. Farrell, Mortimer Fleish-
hacker, Thomas G. Miller, John Ritchie, and Hector
E. Rueda, members of the City Planning Commission.
ABSENT; None
The staff of the Department of City Planning was represented
by Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, Robert Passmore, Planner
V (Zoning); Uayne Rieke, Planner IV (Zoning); Daniel Sullivan,
Planner IV (Zoning) ; Alan Billingsley , Planner II; Russell Natson,
Planner II; and Lynn E. Pio, Secretary,
Donald Canter represented the San Francisco Examiner; Larry
Liebert represented the San Francisco Chronicle; and Dan Borsuk
represented the San Francisco Progress.
CURRENT MATTERS
Allan. B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, reminded the City-I7ide
Comprehensive Plans Committee (Commissioners Newman, Mellon,
Ritchie) of a meeting scheduled next Thursday afternoon at 2:30 p.m.
The Director reported that members of the staff had toured the
Easishore Park industrial area with Commissioner Ritchie and had
benefited from his knowledge of that area.
The Director asked the Commission if it wished to schedule an
evening hearing on the Police Facilities Element on the Comprehen-
sive Plan. President Newman suggested that the decision should be
deferred until the conclusion of the next scheduled hearing on this
matter on June 13.
The Director reported that Proposition C, which would have
established an open space acquisition fund, had lost by approx-
imately 4000 votes in Tuesday's election; and he remarked that the
Commission might wish to encourage the placement of a similar pro-
position on the ballot in the near future. President Newman re-
quested that the Commission be provided with an analysis of the
vote by Proposition C by district.
Commissioner Fleishhacker remarked that a recent edition of Cry
California contained an article which suggested some changes which"
should be made in Environmental Review procedures; and he felt that
it might be wise for the Commission to seek amendment of the State
i-IINTUES OF THE REGULAR I-iEETING -2- JUNE 6, 1574
law to effect some of those changes. The Director indicated that
he would review the article.
3:00 p.m. - Zoning Hearing
ZM74.1. 2045 LANTON STREET, SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 27th
AVENUE. R-3 TO A C-2 DISTRICT.
(UNDER ADVISEMENT FROM MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 1974)
Robert Passmore, Planner V (Zoning) , noted that this case had
been heard by the Commission on February 7, 1974. At that time,
the Director of Planning had recommended that the application be
disapproved on the basis that the proposed re-zoning would result
in a "spot zone" of doubtful legality. The Commission had requested
the staff to seek the advice of the City Attorney on this matter.
The staff had subsequently written the City Attorney for his advice;
and the opinion which had been received in response had concluded
as follows:
"I do not feel that I can add further general, legal
considerations to those stated in your letter and I
believe you have correctly outlined the basic legal con-
siderations which should guide the deliberations of the
Planning Commission in its determination of zoning ques-
tions involving particular parcels of property."
During the course of Mr. Passmore' s presentation, Commissioner
Ritchie arrived in the meeting room and assumed his seat. at the
Commission table.
Allan. B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, repeated his recom-
mendation for disapproval of the application. He noted, hov/ever,
that the legally existing non-conforming use could continue on
the ground floor of the property until April 27, 1981.
Alejandro A. Esclamado, the applicant, expressed his appre-
ciation to the Commission for taking the matter under advisement
from its meeting of February 7; and he indicated that he believed
that the members of the Commission had done the best that they
could to satisfy conflicting interests. During the interim, he had
decided tnat his request, which would require action on the bound-
aries of legality, would be too much to ask of the Commission; and
he was prepared to move his business to another location. Under
the circumstances, he wished to withdraw his application without
prejudice.
The Director stated that hev/ould be willing tQ withdraw .his
previous recommendation and to recommend instead that the Commission
accept the withdrawal of the application without prejudice.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -3- JUNE 6, 1974
After further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Porter,
seconded by Commissioner Fleishhacker, and carried unanimously that
Resolution No. 7185 be adopted and that the applicant's request
to withdrav; the application without prejudice be approved.
President Newman expressed the appreciation of the Commission
to Iir. Escalamado for his understanding.
CU74.29 - NORTHEAST CORNER OF CALIFORNIA AND SPRUCE
STREETS. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR A
PARKING LOT FOR APPROXIMATELY 20 AUTOMOBILES; I
IN AN R-4 DISTRICT.
Robert Passmore, Planner V (Zoning) , referred to land use and
zoning maps to describe the subject property which is a rectangular
corner lot with a frontage of 70 feet on California Street and a
frontage of 92.5 feet on Spruce Street for a total area of 6,482
square feet. He stated that the applicant intended to use the sub-
ject property as a landscaped parking lot in conjuction with ad-
jacent existing parking facilities and a medical office building.
The existing parking facilities have 30 spaces and the proposed lot
would add approximately 20 spaces for a total of 50 spaces.
Joseph Anton, representing the applicant, stated that he had
nothing to add to the comments which had been made by Mr. Passmore.
No one was present to speak in opposition to the application.
Commissioner Fleishhacker inquired about the layout of the
proposed parking lot. Mr. Passmore replied that the Spruce Street
entrance to the subject lot would be closed and that automobiles
would both enter and exit from the site on California Street.
After Commissioner Fleishhacker had questioned whether it might
be better to have the entrance on one street and the exit on an-
other street, Mr. Passmore indicated that the staff had felt that
the combined entrance and exit on California Street would not cause
any traffic problems; however, if problems should develop, the
situation should be changed.
Allan. B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, emphasized that the
staff does try to keep traffic off residential streets.
Commissioner Porter wondered if the combined entrance and exit
on California Street would interfere with transit traffic. The
Director replied that the Transportation Section of the Department
of City Planning had reviewed the plans and did not feel that the
project would have a detrimental effect on transit. However, if
that assumption should prove erroneous, it would not be difficult
to change the driveway. He recommended that the application be
approved subject to 3 specific conditions which were contained in a
draft resolution which he had prepared for consideration by the Com-
mission. After summarizing the conditions, he recommended adoption
of the draft resolution.
nINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -4- JUNE 6, 1974
President Newman asked if the conditions which had been re-
comnencled by the Director would be acceptable to the applicant.
ilr. Anton replied in the affirmative.
After further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Ritchie,
seconded by Commissioner Fleishhacker, and carried unanimously that
the draft resolution be adopted as City Planning Commission Resol-
ution No. 7186 and that the resolution be approved subject to the
conditions which had been recommended by the Director.
At 3:20 p.m. President Newman announced a 10 minute recess.
The Commission reconvened at 3:30 p.m. and proceeded with the hear-
ing of the remainder of the agenda. Commissioner Ritchie was
temporarily absent from the meeting room.
LM74.5 - CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSAL TO DESIGNATE
THE GOODMAN BUILDING, 1117 GEARY STREET,
AS A LANDMARK.
President Newman stated that he had received a letter from the
Goodman Group requesting that hearing of this matter be postponed.
The letter had stated that additional time would be needed to pre-
pare statements on the progress of funding efforts for the re-
habilitation of the building as well as an accurate presentation
of. the buildings social and cultural importance to the city as
artist's housing and a community cultural center.
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, stated that the Re-
development Agency had been advised of the request for postponement
and had raised no objection. He recommended that the hearing be
postponed until the Commission's meeting on July 11.
After discussion it was moved by Commissioner Porter, seconded
by Commissioner Rueda, and carried unanimously that hearing of this
matter be postponed until the Commission's meeting on July 11, 1974,
DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF A PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT 22 DUELLING
UNITS IN 4 BUILDINGS AT 120 CORWIN STREET.
Robert Passmore, Planner V (Zoning) , reviewed the plans for
the proposed project which had been described in detail on May,
1974, when the Commission was consdering an appeal of the staff's
negative declaration for the proposed project. During the interim,
the architect for the applicant had submitted shadow drawings which
were posted on the wall of the meeting room. In addition, the
architect had made two modifications in the plans. When the plans
had originally been submitted, they called for 5 -foot side yards
on the north and south sides of the property, leaving the width of
Acme Alley at 10 feet. In the revised plans, the building had been
shifted northward and narrowed 4 feet in width to permit construe-,
tion of a 16 -foot wide driveway, including Acme Alley, and an ad-
jacent 5-foot sidewalk and a 3-foot planting strip. In addition.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -5- JUNE 6, 1974
the rear balconies of the building had been modified somewhat so
that they would more closely match the building scale proposed on
the front of the building. He stated that the model which was on
display in the meeting room did not show how the garage would be
screened; but the plans indicated that a fluctuating board fence
would be constructed as a screening device.
During the course of Mr. Passmore's presentation, Commissioner
Ritchie returned to the meeting room and reassumed his seat at
the Commission table.
President Newman asked if he were correct in understanding
that the proposed project conformed in all respects with the City
Planning Code. Mr. Passmore replied in the affirmative, but ob-
served that the Commission had been requested to exercise its
discretionary authority over the plans.
Commissioner Porter stated that she would like an explanation
of the shadow studies which had been done by the applicant's archi-
tect.
Harold Major, architect for the developer, stated that a
written report had been placed before each of the members of the
Commission. He then proceeded to explain the charts which were
posted on the wall of the meeting room. In conclusion, he sum-
marized the results of the sun angle study, as follows:
"1. Of all the buildings with adjacent property
lines and across Acme Alley, this project is
the only building that does not cast a shadow
on the mini-park on every day of the year.
Every other adjacent building does cast a
shadow on the mini-park during some time of
the day .
"2. The project does not cast a shadow on the mini-
park before 11 All (12 noon - daylight time) .
"3. The project does not cast a shadow on the mini-
park during the summer vacation when the park
has its greatest use.
"4. On many days of the year, an existing building,
adjacent to the mini-park, casts a shadow over
the mini-park along with the project shadow.
On several days of the year, existing buildings
up the hill on Grandview Ave. and Grandview
Terrace cast shadows on the mini-park along
with and sometimes over the project shadow."
1-iINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -6- JUNE 6, 1974
Bert Schwarzschild, representing the Eureka Valley Promotion
Association, summarized a written submission which read as follows:
"Ily name is Bert Schv/arzschild. I am the coordinator
of this presentation for the Eureka Valley Promotion
Association. I reside at 363 Douglass Street, just
downhill from the apartment complex.
"We do appreciate the opportunity to be heard at
this discretionary review hearing.
"Other neighborhood representatives will testify
briefly about the major adverse effects which we
expect this massive apartment project to have on the
Seward Street Minipark and on Corwin and adjacent
streets.
"He would also like to show later a short film pro-
duced by a neighborhood filmmaker. It will graphically
detail why the residents of Corwin, and of its only
vehicular outlet, upper Douglass Street, are terribly
concerned about further construction on Corwin Street,
and why this neighborhood twice previously appeared be-
fore this Commission to plead for a downzoning on Corwin
Street from R-3 to R-2 - unsuccessfully, I might add.
"We believe our neighborhood's livability is further
threatened by this development. We are convinced that
any further construction on Corwin Street will create
parking, traffic, fire hazard, and pedestrian safety
problem out of proportion to the taxes which the city
ostensibly gains. Most of us believe that Corwin Street
can not take any further construction. This dead-end,
hillside street with only one vehicular outlet onto a
narrow one-lane wide, two-way street (upper Douglass) ,
can not support any more cars, nor risk any increased
fire or safety hazard, or any casulaties.
'TJhat is involved here is not just another park, not
just another neighborhood. TJhat is involved here is
the first and only public park in San Francisco, con-
ceived, designed, anJ maintained by neighbors young and
old, and a neighborhood that has learned to work together
for the livability and neighborhood amenities which
are rightfully theirs.
"Ilany residents are here to try to make you aware
of their apprehensions and their experiences, through
their testimony, or by their silent presence.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -7- JUNE 6, 19 74
''This city has the finest Urban Design Plan in
the nation, thanks to your deep involvement in de-
veloping the plan, and by your unanimous vote in
approving it, an event which I was proud to witness,
llany of this Plan's principles, and policies are
directly relevant to the impact that this apartment
project would have on the park, the street, the neigh-
borhood, and the city. I would like to refer you now
to some of the more important and relevant portions
which suggest that this development would violate the
principles of the Urban Design Plan. I ask you also
to review other relevant excerpts from the plan which
I will omit from reading, and which are included in
the binder which we will submit to you in a minute.
"Here are some of these most relevant principles
from the Urban Design Plan:
"CITIZEN PARTICIPATIOII" - Page 5
"If a plan is to be useful and its impact signifi-.
cant, it must be responsive to citizen concern. There-
fore, one of the foremost efforts in the Urban Design
Study was to determine what the people of the City
identify as the relevant issues. ...» .The desirability
of growth itself has been threatened as density and
bigness are seen as losing bargains that will strain
not only the city's image but also its transit, streets,
open space, public services, and other facilities be-
yond their reasonable capacity. (This project is a strain
on the park, on Corwin St. and on one- lane Douglass I)
"A FRAMEWORK FOR THE ISSUES" - Page 10
"Issues raised in various ways in the Study differ
in viewpoints and in emphasis, but taken together they
show a considerable agreement upon basic human needs
and upon what it is that makes San Francisco a great
city, and a good place to live.
"Four general categories of issues may be defined,
as follows" (I am only quoting the 2 pertinent ones)
•3. MAJOR NEW DEVELOPMENT. Intrusion of new
development, which trhough its visual
dominance, height, or excessive size,
weakens or destroys important city or
neighborhood qualities.
i-lINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -0- JUNE 6, 1974
'4. NEIGHBORHOOD ENVIRONMENT. Erosion of
the immediate environment that closely
affects the daily lives of residents,
through dangers to health and safety,
deterioration of streets and properties,
and lack of comfort or fulfilling expe-
riences. '
"EliPHASIS OF THE CHARACTERISTIC PATTERN WHICH GIVES TO
THE CITY AND ITS NEIGHBORHOODS AN IMAGE", A SENSE Or
PURPOSE, AND A MEANS OF ORIENTATION" - Pages 21-31
'Clearly visible open spaces act as orientation
points, and convey information about the presence
of recreation space// (If this project were built,
Seward Street Park would not even be visible from
Corwin Street, one of its main approaches -BS) //'
...to motorists and pedestrians.'
'Highly visible open space presents a refreshing
contrast to extensive urban development. ' (Same
thing applies as above)
'POLICIES FOR CITY PATTERNS " - Page 36
'Overlooks and other viewpoints for appreciation
of the city and its environs should be protected and
supplemented by limitation of buildings and other
obstructions where necessary and by establishment of
new viewpoints at key locations.'
'Visibility of open spaces especially those on hill-
tops should be maintained and improved, in order to en-
hance the overall form of the city, contribute to the
distinctiveness of districts and permit easy identifi-
cation of recreational resources. The landscaping at
such locations also provide a pleasant focus for views
along streets. '
' (If only builders would be inspired by these policies
and incorporate spaces for street viewing, instead of
building walls between the people and their city. Since
many of them don't, the planning Commission should imple-
ment these policies.)'
■ FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES FOR CONSERVATION " - Page 54
'16. Views from streets can provide a means for
orientation and help the observer to perceive the city
and its districts more clearly. '
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -9- JUNE 6, 1974
'Blocking, constricting or other impairment of
pleasing street views of Bay or Ocean, distant hills
or other parts of the city can destroy an important
characteristic of the unique setting and quality of
the city. '
(These priniciples plead for implementation)
"POLICIES FOR CONSERVATION" - Page 67
'Policy 4 Promote building forms that will
respect and improve the integrity of open spaces
and other public areas .Buildings to the south,
east and west of parks and plazas should be limited
in height or effectively oriented so as not to pre-
vent the penetration of sunlight to such parks and
plazas. '
(Could any statement be more applicable to our
situation than this?)
•FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES FOR MAJOR NEW DEVELOPMENT - .
Pages ?J 8-120
' (15) Plazas or parks located in the shadows cast
by large buildings are unpleasant for the user. '
(Yes, this one is even more applicable, its 'right on')
.. ' (26) Private lands that are landscaped or developed
as open space contribute to the visual and recreational
resources of the city' (Jonathan Manor Inc. PLEASE
LISTEN TO THIS ONE!)
"POLICIES FOR NEIGHBORHOOD ENVIRONMENT" - Page 124
■••Policy 1. Protect residential areas from noise,
pollution and physical danger of excessive traffic.'
(This describes the Corwin/upper Douglass traffic
bottleneck and congestion to the letter. It is your
planning function to say 'No' I to construction which
will further violate this policy)
' The presentation binder which I would now like to
distribute to you , documents what the city's Urban
Design Plan has to say about such an apartment develop-
ment.
'Our neighborhood is depending on you, our public
representatives, to implement the principles and
policies of the Urban Design Plan, in making your
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -10- JUNE 6, 1974
decision. This is definitely an issue where the
public need and interest of many residents should
take precedence the profit motivation of a builder."
During the course of his presentation, ilr. Schwarzschild
was asked by Commissioner Fleishhacker if the people whom he
represented were opposed to any construction whatsoever on the
subject property, iir. Schwarzschild replied that they were ter-
ribly concerned about any further construction on Corwin Street al-
though they were fully aware that the role of developers is to
develop properties. However, if he were a member of the City Plan-
ning Commission, he would act in accordance with the policies con-
tained in the Urban Design Plan.
Commissioner Ritchie asked Iir. Schwarzschild what he would do
if he were the owner of the subject property and were paying taxes
on it. ilr. Schwarzschild replied that he would never get into the
development business. However, if he did, he would be very con-
scious about over-loading a building site. He remarked that .
builders take a responsibility and a risk when they build in an
area where services are already overburdened. He stated that a new
10-unit building had been constructed across the street from the
subject site; and he informed the Commission that the owners of that
building supported the protest of the subject building permit ap-
plication.
Commissioner Ritchie asked if Mr. Schwarschild had objected
to the 10-unit building when it was proposed, ilr. Schwarzschild
repliedin the negative but indicated that he felt that he should
have in retrospect.
Commissioner Porter asked if she were correct in understanding
that iir. Schwarschild v/anted no further development on Corwin Street
iir. Schwarschild replied that that would be his preference.
Commissioner Porter stated that she had been impressed t-/ith
Seward Street mini-park; but she wondered, how people are able to
get to the site. Mr. Schwarschild replied that the park is used
mostly by people who live within 6 or 10 blocks of the site; and
most of those people walk to the property.
Commissioner Fleishhacker asked if Mr. Schwarschild knew how
many children enter the park from Acme Alley as opposed to Seward
Street. Mr. Schwarschild replied that he only knew that some chil-
dren do enter the park by way of Acme Alley; but he indicated that
another member of the audience might have more information on that
subject.
Commissioner Ritchie inquired about the value of the subject
property, ilr. Major replied that the property is worth approx-
imately $220,000.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -11- JUNE 6, 1974
Commissioner Ritchie then observed that the Eureka Valley
Promotion Association wished to have the subject property remain
vacant for the protection of the adjacent mini-park; and, if the p
property were to remain vacant, he wondered how the owner of the
land would be compensated.
Mr. Schwarzschild stated that property owners in Bolinas are
being prevented from undertaking new construction because of the
inadequancy of the town's sewer system; and he felt that the issue
which was presently before the Commission was somewhat comparable.
He remarked that it is clear that the Department of Public Works is
not going to do anything to solve traffic problems in the subject
neighborhood/ and, as a result, if something were to be constructed
on the subject property which would add to the traffic burden of
the neighborhood, he felt that the owner of the property should be
required to pay for a solution to the traffic problem.
Commissioner Porter asked if there were any possibility that
concerned residents of the area would be willing to purchase the
property. Mr. Schwarschild replied that they would be willing to
purchase the property if they had the means; however, in order to
raise the funds necessary for purchase of the property, he believed
that a city-wide effort would be needed.
Mr. Schwarschild then called on a resident of the neighborhood
to run a film which had been taken to illustrate traffic problems
in the area and to show how the Seward Street mini-park is used.
The film ended with a mock accident on Acme Alley intended to il-
lustrate how increased automobile traffic on that dangerous road-
way could threaten the lives of children using the roadway for
access to the mini-park.
Sue Hestor, President of the Eureka Valley Promotion Asso-
ciation, called attention to the fact that many residents of the
neighborhood had signed petitions in opposition to the proposed
project. She then read excerpts from the minutes of the Commission'
meeting of March 21, 1963, in which the Director of Planning had
recommended that the zoning of properties in the subject neighbor-
hood be changed to R-2; and, in giving his recommendation, he had
pointed out that the application then under consideration focused
attention on the broad issue of density standards adopted in the
Planning Code then in existence. She also read excerpts from the
minutes of the Commission's meeting of June 7, 1973, when Assistant
Fire Chief Gautier had been present and had stated that it would be
impossible for fire trucks to get into the area if automobiles are
illegally parked near the intersection of Douglass and Corwin
Streets. Chief Gautier had also indicated that water pressure
causes another problem in that insurance services require a delivery
of 2500 to 3000 gallons per minute and stated that it was possible
to get only about 1000 gallons per minute in the subject neighborr
hood. Miss Hestor stated that she had passed the intersection of
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -12- JUNE 6, 1974
Douglass and Corwin Streets earlier in the day; and, given the way
that people were parked in the area, she was convinced that it
would have been impossible for a fire truck to get into the area.
Commissioner Rueda asked how the proposed building would change
the existing situation- in the subject neighborhood. Miss Hestor
replied that the proposed project would have only 25 off-street
parking spaces for 22 dwelling units; and, in view of the rents
which would probably be charged, she believed that the 3-bedroom
units in the project would probably he occupied by tenants with 3
cars. £)n an 'over-all average, she estimated that the project would
bring at. least 1% and probably 2 cars to the -area for each unit
constructed.
Commissioner Rueda observed that the parking problem already
exists in the neighborhood; and he did not see how the problem
could get any worse.
Miss Hestor felt that the problem could get a lot worse. In
fact, only 4 years ago it was possible to find parking spaces in
the area. However, parking is not the major problem. The main
problem is that of traffic hazards. She remarked that most neigh-
borhoods have a variety of access routes; however, only 3 or 4
routes are available for access to the subject neighborhood, and
all of the routes use one block of Douglass Street. She indicated
that the proposed building would cast a shadow on the subject pro-
perty itself; and, as a result, it would be difficult to maintain
good landscaping on the site. She remarked that the impossible
traffic conditions in the neighborhood had been one of the factors
which had led the Commission to "down- zone" property on Kite Hill
last year; and, since things had not gotten any better in the in-
terim, she did not see how the Commission could overlook traffic
considerations in its evaluation of the project presently under
consideration.
President Newman asked Miss Hestor what her specific request
of the Commission would be. Miss Hestor replied that under ideal
circumstances she would prefer that nothing be constructed on the
subject property; however, given reality, she would like to have
the Commission require the developer to scale-down his project. In
response to further questions raised by President Newman, Miss
Hestor stated that she felt that 8 dwelling units would make a
wonderful project; however, given the possibility that such a re-
quest might be unrealistic, she would be happy to settle for two
thirds or two quarters of the units proposed with no building
directly abutting on Acme Alley. That compromise would give resi-
dents of the neighborhood some sunlight and safety.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -13- JUNE 6, 1974
Eileen Laspa, 4426 19th Street, raised the following concerns
about tho effects of the proposed project on the Seward Street
mini-park;
"First, the possibility of this building causing
a large shadow to fall on the park especially in the
late afternoon when children have the greatest oppor-
tunity to play there. Since we do not have an Envi-
ronmental Impact Report, we do not know for sure how
bad this could actually be.
"Second, we are worried about the potential safety
hazard for children coming to the park through Acme
Alley. The building plans call for parking access
using this public thoroughfare which is not equipped
with a sidewalk. There may be blind corners, both
for auto drivers and pedestrians to say nothing of
the hazard caused by the steepness of the alley.
This causes cars to have a momentary blind spot as
they come over the hill crest off Corwin Street.
The slope also lessens tire traction. I have per-
sonally seen a car skid trying to get up Acme Alley
to Corwin. In damp weather, drivers could easily
lose control of their vehicles endangering children
coming to the park.
"Third, the park already generates considerable
noise from the children playing there. If a high
six story building faced the park uphill we might
be building ourselves an echo chamber where the
noise reverberated from all sides. I should think
that even the builders in the interests of renting
their units would want to avoid that.
"Finally, but most important however, is how it
feels to play in the park. Should children play in
an atmosphere where the things around them are human
sized and in proportion to nature, or should they
play in an atmosphere of huge buildings much taller
than even the surrounding trees that makes them feel
even smaller than they are and that much less im-
portant. This consideration is, admittedly, much
less tangible than some of the others, but I hope
you will not ignore it. It may be tied to why high-
rise public housing projects for families are not
very successful. At Seward Street, the predominant
feeling now is of sky and open space. For the sake
of our children, we don't want to see that become
concrete and parking garages."
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -14- JUNE 6, 1974
Through a series of questions directed to Mrs. Laspa,
Commissioner Fleishhacker determined that the Seward Street Mini-
Park is used mostly by children between the ages of 3 and 12 years,
that the younger children are usually accompanied by adults when
they visit the mini-park, and that access to the mini-park is
distributed approximately equally between Seward Street and Acme
Alley.
Commissioner Fleishhacker then asked if Acme Alley is a safe
safety hazard for the children at the present time. Mrs. Laspa
replied that the hazard is not great at the present time since
many of the children walk on the vacant land instead of in the
street right-of-way. Commissioner Fleishhacker then observed that
the 24 foot right-of-way being proposed by the developer for Acme
Alley should reduce the present danger.
Commissioner Porter asked when the mini-park is used. She
remarked that the members of the Commission had taken a field trip
to the site at 1:30 in the afternoon and had seen no children in
the mini-park. Mrs. Laspa replied that the mini-park is used on
weekends and during the summer months; in addition, the mini-park
is used by schools in the area during the school year.
Robert Davis, resident of property at the intersection of
Douglass and Corwin Streets, stated that he was pleased that mem-
bers of the Commission had taken a field trip to the subject
neighborhood; and he felt that it was significant that a large
number of residents of the neighborhood had come to the present
meeting to protest the proposed project. He noted that the film
which had been shown earlier in the meeting had illustrated that
it is almost impossible for fire trucks to make the turn at the
intersection of Douglass and Corwin Streets; and, as another ex-
ample of the traffic problem faced by the neighborhood, he advised
the Commission that a moving van had gotten into difficulty in the
area last weekend, holding up traffic for 20 minutes a scrapping
things in the process. He believed that the 22 units proposed
would be inhabited by single people; and the automobilees which
they would bring to the area would make the traffic problem signif •
cantly worse. In conclusion, he stated chat he hoped that a com-
promise could be reached wherein the developer would be willing to
reducethe number of units in the proposed project, resulting in a situa-
tion which would be more tolerable. In reply to a question raised
by Commissioner Fleishhacker as to the number of units which should
be eliminated, Mr. Davis stated that he felt that the entire pro-
ject should be limited to 3 floors in height; and he believed that
the developer could still make a profit from such a project.
Commissioner Farrell observed that additional automobiles,
resulting in slower traffic, v/ould probably reduce the accident
hazard in the neighborhood. Mr. Davis tended to disagree. Auto-
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -15- JUNE 6, 1974
mobiles travelling opposite directions on the hair-pin turn are
not able to see each other regardless of their speed; and even
single automobiles sometimes have difficulties. He stated that
his automobile had been side-swiped three times.
Commissioner Ritchie remarked that there are many areas in
San Francisco, such as Telegraph Hill, Pacific Heights, and Nob
Hill, which experience similar traffic problems. After Mr. Davis
had suggested that no other hilly area in the city has a deadend
street which is developed entirely with multiple dwellings, Com-
missioner Ritchie cited Montgomery Street on Telegraph Hill as
another example of such a street.
Joan Cunningham, a teacher at Alvarado Elementary School, ad-
vised the Commission that children attending that school live
south and east of the Seward Street mini-park. Children in her
classes had prepared charts to indicate how they use the mini-park
Of the 29 children who live near the mini-park, nine indicated
that they never go to it, none indicated that they use it daily,
four indicated that they use it weekly, and 16 indicated that they
use it sometimes. A second chart explained whom they go with when
visiting the mini-park. A third chart showed that eleven children
always enter the mini-park by way of Acme Alley, that six children
always enter the mini-park from Seward Street, and that three chil
dren enter by either route.
Joyce Silver stated that she lives in an existing 22 unit
apartment building which has frontage on Acme Alley. She advised
the Commission that most of the people who live in the building
have more than one automobile; and, since the open car ports in
the building are very dangerous, many of the people residing in
the building prefer to park on the street. While it appeared that
the propose project would be very attractive, she felt that it
would be much too large for its location. While she felt that the
subject property should be developed, she believed that the number
of units should be reduced; and she suggested that the elimination
of four units on one end of the project might be a reasonable com-
promise. She confirmed that streets in the neighborhood are often
blocked, making it impossible to get into or out of the area; and
she emphasized that Acme Alley is very steep and dangerous.
Commissioner Ritchie asked Miss Silver if she felt that red
curbs would help to over-come traffic problems in the area. Miss
Silver replied that the neighborhood has very few curbs as it is;
and, if the existing curbs were painted red, people would have no
place to park their cars. She advised the Commission that streets
in the neighborhood are particularly hazardous for visitors who
are not familiar with the area; and she reported that some of her
friends have had accidents there.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -16- JUNE 6, 19 74
Mario Spagna felt that Commissioner Ritchie had expressed
a valid concern when he had questioned hov/ the owner of the sub-
ject property would be reimbursed if he were not permitted to
develop the site; however, he believed that the concerns which
had been expressed by residents of the subject neighborhood far
outweighed the interest of the owner. He stated that fire hazard
in the neighborhood would be aggravated by construction of the
proposed project; and he emphasized that it is almost impossible
for Fire Department equipment to get into the area. When asked
by President Newman if he were of the opinion that nothing what-
soever should be built on the property, Mr. Spagna replied that
he believed that there was some room for compromise.
Louis Strait remarked that the alley ways on Twin Peaks have
been of great value to pedestrians, both for strolling and for
access to public transit; and he felt that it has a step in the
wrong direction to expand the use of the alleys for vehicles.
Thomas Karnes stated that he also, had made a shadow study
of the proposed project; and he indicated that his study sub-
stantially concurred with that of the developers architect. How-
ever, his study had indicated that the upper part of the mini-park
would be in complete shade during the latter part of afternoons
from October 2 3 to February 13. He also submitted a letter which
had been addressed to the Commission by Richard Egelhofer, a fire-
man which read as follows:
"In my professional opinion, a new apartment building
would add to an already dangerous fire area, Corwin
Street.
"In most areas of San Francisco, the Fire Department
apparatus can arrive on the scene of a fire from all
directions. In the case of Corwin Street, there is only
one entrance route, via 21st and Douglass Streets.
This is further complicated by a narrow 90° turn (Cor-
win at Douglass Streets) which an Areal Truck would
have considerable difficulty negotiating, and a very
limited access from below (Seward Street) a very steep
slope. In fire fighting, arrival time of the apparatus
and men is paramountand therefore a small room and
contence fire could very easily turn into a tragic loss
of life and property.
"As a fire fighter, I feel Corwin Street is an
extreme fire hazard area and should be zoned low density
for fire safety. As a life long resident of Eureka
Valley, I feel the squeeze of high density housing; ie.,
busy streets, lack of street parking, lack of open space;
which taxes the city services of Police, Fire, and
Schools. "
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -17- JUNE 6, 1974
John Kornfeld suggested that the Commission should take the
environmental impact of the proposed project into consideration,
giving thought to its effect on traffic congestion, fire hazards,
and inadequate water pressure. His recommendation was that one
unit should be eliminated from each level of the proposed project.
Such a modification would alleviate the view and shadow problems;
and it would bring less traffic to the area.
Jim Kochevar stated that the subject neighborhood is already
overbuilt; and he urged the Commission to give consideration to
people who already live in the area. He believed that a real fire
hazard exists in the neighborhood; and, given that situation,
he did not see how anyone could allow more units to be constructed
in the area.
David Roditti stated that he is a teacher at Everett Junior
High School; and he advised the Commission that many of the chil-
dren in his classes, as well as his own children, often use the
Seward Street mini-park. He regarded the mini-park as unique in
that it is both used and maintained by the neighborhood. Resi-
dents of the neighborhood, both those living in single-family
homes and those living in apartment buildings, have formed a very
conscious and involved community; and he believed that construc-
tion of apartment buildings such as the one presently being pro-
posed would encourage residents of the subject neighborhood to
move out of the city.
President Newman asked for a show of hands of those present
in the audience in opposition to the proposed project. Approx-
imately 40 people responded.
Mr. Schwarzschild noted that Commissioner Ritchie had asked
him if he was opposed to any development of the subject property;
and he acknowledged that his response had been somewhat indirect.
Nevertheless, residents of the subject neighborhood had done a
great deal of "soul-searching" relative to a possible compromise;
and they had prepared a sketch of a possible alternative to the
proposed project. He displayed the sketch, noting that it was
designed to solve three basic problems posed by the original plans
i.e. the effect of the project on the mini-park, on traffic, and or
neighborhood safety. One of the main features of the rendering
was that the driveway for the proposed project had been removed
from Acme Alley. In reply to a question raised by Commissioner
Porter as to the number of units which would be possible under
the alternate scheme, Mr. Schwarzschild replied that he was not
entirely sure insofar as the developer would have flexibility in
terms of numbers if he were to vary the sizes of the units; how-
ever, he believed that it would result in a reduction of approx-
imately 8 units.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -18- JUNE 6, 1974
President Newman asked if the developer had any alternate
proposal to offer.
Mr. Major remarked that a double standard was being used
in the sketches which were on display in the meeting room. He
stated that the drawings and model which had been prepared for
the developer were prepared to scale whereas tne perspectives
which had been prepared by the opposition had offered them an
opportunity to emphasize what they wished and to de-emphasize
what they wished. While Acme Alley has a width of only 10 feet
at the present time, the developer's plans would widen the road-
way of the alley to 16 feet to permit 2 way traffic; and, in
addition, the project would provide a 5 -foot wide walkway and a
3-foot wide planting strip on privately-owned land.
Commissioner Ritchie asked how the walkway would be separated
from the alley and whether the walkway would consist of steps or
a ramp. Mr. Major replied that the walkway would be separated
from the alley by curbs. Flat portions of the sidewalk at drive-
way areas would be like regular sidewalks; and steps would be pro-
vided on the steeper slopes. He pointed out to the Commission
that the apartment building on the opposite side of Acme Alley
was permitted to have a much smaller rear yard than the project
now being proposed; and, in addition, the other apartment build-
ing was allowed to use its rear yard area for parking. As a re-
sult of new regulations, the proposed project would have a great
deal more open- space than the other development; and, in addition,
the landscaping of the proposed project would be enhanced by drop-
in planters which would be installed on the rear balconies of the
building.
Commissioner Ritchie then asked how the garage of the pro-
posed building would be screened. Mr. Major replied that it would
be screened by something like a fence which would permit the pas-
sage of air. He then noted that one of the opponents to the pro-
ject had claimed that the upper part of the mini-park would be
cast in shadows during late afternoon hours for three and one-half
months in the winter; and he indicated that he wished to call on
an assistant who had prepared the shadow studies for him to com-
ment on the opinion expressed by the other person.
Bob Degoff stated that the proposed building would not be
the only building in the area which would cast shadows on the
mini-park; and he advised the Commission that it would be the only
building which would not cast shadows on the mini-park everyday
of the year. In fact, the shadow of the proposed project would
not touch the mini-park on a great number of days during the year.
As an average, the shadows cast by the proposed project on the
mini-park at 3s 00 p.m. would account for only 46% of the shadow
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -19- JUNE 6, 1974
cast by other buildings. Later in the day, around 5:00 p.m. when
the sun sets, buildings located higher on the hill would cast
their shadows over the proposed project as well as the mini-park.
Commissioner Ritchie, noting that the residents of the neigh-
borhood had expressed concern about shadows, traffic congestion,
and views, asked what alternatives the developer would suggest,
if any, to meet those concerns.
Mr. Major replied that the proposed project, with 22 dwell-
ing units, would house approximately 25% of the people on the
block; and he believed that his client was as much concerned
about the problems of the neighborhood as anyone else since his
tenants would have to share the same adversities. When asked by
Commissioner Ritchie if a slight reduction in the number of units
in the proposed project would be possible, Mr. Major replied that
anything is possible but indicated that he would have to put the
question to his client.
Commissioner Porter asked how many units would legally be
permitted on the subject property under the Interim Residential
Zoning Controls. Mr. Passmore replied that a maximum of 24
dwelling units would be permitted on the site.
Mr. Kornfeld asked how many units would be eliminated if
each level of the project were to be reduced by one unit. Mr.
Major replied that 5 dwelling units would be eliminated.
The Secretary advised the Commission that he had received
a call from Assemblyman John L. Burton's office indicating that
the assemblyman wished to be placed on record in support of
residents of the neighborhood who had spoken in opposition to the
proposed project.
Mr. Passmore stated that Thomas Malloy of the Recreation
and Park Department had called to state that his department was
concerned about the project and that it hoped that the City Plan-
ning Commission would take into account the safety of children
in the area. It was also hoped that any building which might be
approved for the property would not significantly reduce the sun-
light available to the mini-park.
Commissioner Ritchie asked if the economics of the owner of
the subject property would allow a reduction in the number of
units proposed for the site.
George Lu, owner of the subject property, advised the Com-
mission that he had sold the city two lots for the mini-park for
$37,500 while the properties were actually worth $52,000. Fur-
thermore, when he had originally purchased the subject property,
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -20- JUNE 6, 1974
a greater number of units would have been permitted than at the
present time. When asked by President Newman if his preference
was to stand on the plans which had been submitted, Mr. Lu replied
in the affirmative.
Mr. Schwarzschild stated that he had talked with Mr. Babin
in the City's Real Estate Department and had been advised that the
city had had a fair appraisal made of the lots now occupied by
the mini-park , that it had made Mr. Lu an offer, and that he had
accepted the offer.
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, observed that the pro-
posed project would conform with all applicable City Planning Code
provisions for the subject R-3 zoned property, including interim
controls particularly related to front setbacks and rear yard
areas; and he believed that the only modification which would have
any significant effect on the issues raised by residents of the
neighborhood would be to eliminate as many as one-half of the
units in the proposed development. He felt that the proposed pro-
ject would be consistent with existing development on Corwin
Street. With regard to the issue of shadows, he indicated that
it was possible that a slight reduction of the rear balconies of
the upper units of the proposed project might have a significant
positive effect on the mini-park; and he wished to have an oppor-
tunity to study that matter further with the applicant and his
architect. He then recommended approval of the modified building
permit application subject to two conditions. The conditions read
as follows :
"1. In consultation with the Department of City
Planning, the presently submitted plans shall
be modified to reduce the overhang of roof
decks where such reduction would result in
preservation of existing sunlight on the ad-
jacent mini-park; and
"2. Final exterior architectural materials and
details, and final landscaping, consistent
with the drawings and model presented by the
applicant to the Commission on June 6, 1974,
shall be reviewed and approved by the Depart-
ment of City Planning prior to commencement
of building construction."
President Newman asked if the conditions which had been re-
commended by the Director would be acceptable to the applicant.
Mr. Major replied that he would be willing to work with the
staff of the Department of City Planning to reduce the overhangs
of the upper rear balconies if it appeared that something would be
gained by such a reduction.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -21- JUNE 6, 1974
After further discussion it was moved by Commissioner
Ritchie and seconded by Commissioner Fleishhacker that the draft
resolution recommended by the Director be adopted.
Commissioner Fleishhacker noted that one of the concerns ex-
pressed by residents of the neighborhood was the safety of Acme
Alley; and he emphasized that construction of the proposed pro-
ject would render the alley safer than at the present time. An-
other concern expressed was that of traffic congestion, the sol-
ution to which might involve widening the street; but he observed
that the Department of City Planning does not have jurisdiction
over such matters.
Commissioner Porter remarked that the. basic tenor of the ob-
jections which had been raised was that residents of the neighbor-
hood wished to have no development on the subject property what-
soever. While she was sympathetic with their concerns, she pointed
out that the new Interim Residential Zoning Controls would result
in the provision of a larger rear yard area without parking for
the proposed project than that which was required for the apart-
ment building on the opposite side of Acme Alley. She felt that
the major mistake was made by the Board of Supervisors in 1960
when they had overruled the recommendation of the City Planning
Commission for R-l zoning in the subject neighborhood and had
zoned the area R-3. In conclusion, she stated that she agreed
with Commissioner Fleishhacker that something should be done to
widen Corwin Street, even if it should result in disruption of
existing buildings.
When the question was called, the Commission voted unani-
mously to adopt Resolution No. 7187 and to approve the revised
building permit application for the proposed project subject to
the two conditions which had been recommended by the Director
of Planning.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynn E. Pio
Secretary
SAN FRANCISCO
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of the Regular Meeting held Thursday, June 13, 1974.
i
The City Planning Commission met pursuant to notice on Thursday, June 13,
1974, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 282, City Hall.
PRESENT: Walter S. Newman, President; Mrs. Charles B. Porter, Vice-
President; John C. Farrell, Mortimer Fleishhacker, Thomas J.
Mellon, and John Ritchie, members of the City Planning Com-
mission.
ABSENT: Hector E. Rueda, member of the City Planning Commission.
The staff of the Department of City Planning was represented by Allan B.
Jacobs, Director of Planning; George A. Williams, Assistant Director - Plans and
Programs; Lucian Blaze j , City Planning Coordinator; Emily Hill, Planner III -
Transportation; John Mackie, Planner II; and Lynn E. Pio, Secretary.
Larry Liebert represented the San Francisco Chronicle; and Donald Canter
represented the San Francisco Examiner.
CURRENT MATTERS
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, announced that next Thursday's Neigh-
borhood Plans Committee meeting will be cancelled.
The Director advised the Commission of items to be heard during meetings to
be held in the near future.
The Director distributed copies of a draft resolution which he had prepared
to announce the Commission's intention to hold a public hearing on the question
of increasing City Planning Code fees. He noted that a report had been made on
this matter during the meeting of May 24; and he indicated that the proposed reso-
lution was required to initiate the Planning Code amendment to change the fees.
If the draft resolution were adopted by the Commission, the public hearing would
be calendared by July 11. He recommended that the draft resolution be adopted.
After discussion it was moved by Commissioner Fleishhacker, seconded by
Commissioner Porter, and carried unanimously that the draft resolution be adopted
as City Planning Commission Resolution No. 7188.
The Director displayed and commented on a map which had been prepared to
reflect the recent vote on Proposition "C" by precinct. The gist of his comments
was that it appeared that the poorer and richer neighborhoods had voted for the
initiative while middle-class neighborhood had voted against it. George A.
Williams, Assistant Director - Plans and Programs, observed that there seemed to
be a corollation between the "no" vote and precincts which are comprised largely
of owner-occupied single-family residences.
■
■ :
..'■.■■■■•-. ! '
. ■ ' I ; : .. • ■
■ ■ ■
■■■■'■.;
1
3 - J
.•■■■• • ■'■ '
■ ;J til ■-■■".. ' '•■ ■ ':
■ ••: .- ' • :■■
. - - i ■ ■ ■: - . i ■ ■■■ Si
■ ■■,■■ ■ .
. - . i . '■'■''
tori • i - '- '•>. "■
. ; ■. ■ . |j •..-.■ ' si
• •' 1 1 • ;. S ' " •
■": ■ ■ •-
: .88.K , . : g
-■-'•.'.:■
•' ' ' ■■ ■ ■'• ■■■ I
' • iooq sdl bwesqi ■ eaw
: - ■'
■ ;..'.;.■■-.
>. . ' .:-. 10 I ■ k<J
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -2- JUNE 13, 1974
The Director reported that the Board of Supervisors, meeting on Monday, had
adopted zoning changes for Nob Hill as recommended by the Commission.
PUBLIC HEARING OK THE POLICE FACILITIES ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN —
A PROPOSAL FOR CITIZEN REVIEW.
(CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF JUNE 5, 1974)
Following introductory remarks by President Newman and the Director of
Planning, Dr. Washington E. Garner, President of the Police Commission, stated
that a group of people had arrived at the Police Commission meeting on June 5
after the members of the City Planning Commission had departed; and the Police
Commission had received testimony from those individuals who wished to be heard.
Lieutenant Jordan of the Police Department stated that a court reporter had been
present and had prepared a transcript of the testimony; and he had had copies of
the transcript prepared for distribution to individual members of the Commission.
Dr. Robert Raines, 188 27th Street, read the following statement:
"I wish to commend the Department of City Planning and the Police
Department for what is essentially an excellent and thorough report (Proposal
for Citizen Review: Police Facilities). However, I oppose the projected
closing of two district stations. I would favor a minimum of nine district
stations; I would favor even more. To quote the Report (p. 25):
' ...Continuous communication, interaction and cooperation between the
police and community on an informal basis foster understanding and
develop ties which strengthen the community and aid the police in their
peace-keeping responsibilities.
...Neighborhoods want to relate to police personnel on an individual
basis, as partners working together to improve the quality of community
life.'
"The report embodies a strong spirit of positive community-police
relations. But any tendency to centralize police facilities will be a
grave detriment to the possibility of such a positive relationship.
"One of the best aspects of S.F.P.D. policy is its program by which
public inebriates are kept outside of the criminal justice system. Public
drunks are allowed to 'dry out' at district stations rather than being
arrested. But this process of diversion (which lightens court schedules
considerably) cannot be carried out in neighborhoods where residents and
police don't know each other. When an officer and a public inebriate who
are strangers to each other make contact, the possibilities for tension,
hostility and conflict are enormously increased.
"The concept of diversion from the criminal justice system (which now
has a nationwide organization formed in its support) is summed up in a
University of Oregon doctoral dissertation in Psychology by Dr. Donald A.
True (September 1973). The dissertation is entitled Evaluative Research
in a Police Juvenile Diversion Program.
..
■
- ■. : ■
' ■
- ■
■
:
'
-
.
I
,
'
:
!
' ■ .' . ■ Ffi ■ ■
'.,,■. aa. ■ .■■.■■.-' :
.... i . :'.■-.■
'.•:•..■ ■ " . . ■ . -
ram 10 ../..'.
■
• ■ ao ..■'....' ..
I >' ■ .
■ ■-■'"' -. ■
" . • ■ - ■ ■ ■ ..
■
!
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -3- JUNE 13, 1974
'The concept of diversion ... can be regarded as a social application
of psychological principles which advocate a prescription of minimal involve-
ment with punishing authorities and maximal involvement with those who re-
inforce prosocial behavior and develop human problem solving skills...'
"Diversion, in short, is an innovation in police work that is meeting
great success in many municipal areas (including Boston). It saves lives
and it saves money. Any police facilities rearrangement that would make
Diversion less effective will be detrimental to the health, safety and wel-
fare of San Franciscans.
"To quote again from the Report:
'...Until there is public support for such a move / the closing
of two district stations^/, the present number of district stations--
nine--should be retained. '
'I submit that there is no community support for these closings, and
that Lh< planning commission should re-explore the budgetary requirements
for bringing the existing stations up to acceptable and functional standards."
Julius Zamacona, a member of the Excelsior - Outer Mission Police Community
Relations Committee, stated that the people in his neighborhood feel that they
have good relations with the police staff at the Ingleside Station; and they hoped
that that station would not be closed. While he acknowledged that better commu-
nication systems ought to provide the community with fast police service whether
the number of district stations is decreased to 6 or 7 or increased to 9 or 10,
he felt that the Ingleside district station should be retained.
Mrs. Ann Stanfel, representing the Central Cayuga Block Club, stated that
she would refrain from speaking since Lieutenant Jordan had submitted a transcript
of comments made by members of her organization before the Police Commission on
June 5. However, she urged the Commissioners to read the transcript.
Myron Zimmerman, representing the OMI Community Association, advised the
Commission that petitions had been circulated in his neighborhood concerning the
possibility of closing Engleside Station; and they had found that the neighbor-
hood was solidly opposed to losing that facility. As a result, the position of
the OMI Community Association would be to do everything possible to prevent clo-
sure of the station. However, he felt that it would be desirable if a new station
could be constructed in a more accessible location; and, if a new facility were
planned, he hoped that it would contain a room large enough for community meetings.
Diane Brunot, also representing the OMI Community Association, remarked that
the Ingleside station is located on park land. As a result, it could not be re-
constructed on the same site; yet, there is no other city-owned land in the
Ingleside district where such a facility could be located, Under the circumstances,
she felt that the existing station should be retained. If any changes were to be
made in the number of districts, she felt that they should be increased rather
than decreased. In her opinion, a new police station should be constructed on
Ocean Avenue near the existing firehouse; and she remarked that the Homewood
sis
-
• I
,.. . - .
dmua 3a - ■ ■. ■ ■
■• ■ ' on a .
■;rOj32J
H
.
" '' ' CsoxJ
' .■'..'■'. -..'.■-
''■•'■"- ■ .""■...■.
' •■ ■' [won -. .. :
'• • •■ '.
■ ■' ■ ■■ a
■ > ' ..■■■• '" ■. ! ■
■ 9 b ■•/■..■.'..■-. i
- ■"■' ' ' r ' ' •
r J ' -.■■:
■ . ■■ i
■ •■.• hi
•,. :'"'■'
■•...• .■ . -
■ ' ■ ■
' ■ i ■"• ■ a
■
MINUTES OF TKZ REGULAR MEETING -4- JUNE 13, 1974
Terrace property would have made a good site for a new station if the city had
had funds when the land was available. She remarked that her neighborhood had
lost its share of Bart construction when funds were transferred for the construc-
tion of the Embarcadero station; and efforts have been made to close branch
libraries in the area. Police service, ho\*ever, must not be lost; and she felt
that the city should provide the men in the Ingleside district station with every-
thing they need to do their jobs, including a need building, if necessary.
W. T. Turner, representing the Central Cayuga Block Club, advised the Com-
mission that schools in his neighborhood had been vandalized; and he indicated
that parks in the area have not been provided with sufficient police protection.
He felt that the matter would become infinitely worse if the Irgleside district
station were to be closed.
Gerald E. Parmenter, Vice-President of the Home Owners Tax Control Associa-
tion, stated that the members of his organization had had a meeting since he had
last appeared before the Commission; and they continued to feel that the staff
proposal should be tabled for two years. He believed that an effort is being
made to federalize police departments throughout the United States; and the intel-
ligence reports which he receives from Washington D.C. every two weeks indicate
that things are getting worse week by week. If the Commission were to postpone
action on the proposed plan for two years, he believed that they would not wish
to establish the policies recommended in the staff report at that time.
Mrs. Hoesser, representing the Naples - Rolph Block Club, stated that she
would agree to the closing of her district police station if the closing would
put 50 more policemen on the streets where they are needed. However, if no more
policemen were to be placed on beats, the members of her club would not be willing
to agree to a reduction in the number of district stations.
Paul Wong, a U.M.C. Community Developer, felt that the Richmond District
station should offer positive vocational training.
Jeanne Lippay, Chairman of the San Francisco Conservation Sub-Committee
of the San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club, submitted and summarized
the following statement:
"The San Francisco Department of City Planning and the San Francisco
Police Department are to be commended for the Police Facilities Proposal
for Citizen Pveview which has resulted from their joint efforts.
"The S. F. Bay Chapter SIERRA CLUB supports the April 1974 plan being
considered for adoption by the Planning Commission as it now stands and
including the following assurances:
"1. Because the Pistol Range at Lake Merced is non- conforming
with the open space zoning designation of the City's Comprehensive
Plan for this area (p. 15), it should be phased out as pistol range
facilities are incorporated in the district stations and headquarters
■■.''■■'•■.'■ •
' ", • -
. - : ■.'
/.•;.'.■ ib i •
. .- ■-'.••' . ...
•■ ,
d aiij io Jti .,
■ i. ■ id . . .. ■
..... . . o •■ a >j . ... . ' '
-. . . ■ ,.rr I . ' 3 . .. ._
... .'■■■•■ :
yd ii'j: . I
•'. i ''
.-... ■>■.
' •. qj ""' S ■ •.: ' :. .. - ' 1'
■- - .a .--••■ ,
. Qi
■-■'- I
■ • • •' . ■■ • .'■..'' s .
1 - '- ■ • . • ....•. i a
: '• i , .' ■ -
"'■"•. ...■■■•:;.'
'■•■-'.'■
',■,'.■■:■..
' • ' " ■ . . . . .
■■■-■■■■. . ...
*''•---:■ .6 .
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -5- JUNE 13, 1974
building. Until such time as the indoor facilities have been built,
the pistol range at Lake Merced will be maintained but not expanded
(p. 23), and will be made available for public recreational use under
proper supervision (p. 40).
"2. A Police Athletic Facility should be centrally and conven-
iently located, integrated with the Police Academy and near Police
Headquarters. Police personnel should be encouraged to use existing
neighborhood athletic facilities for exercise and training (p. 32).
"The following portions of the Plan are unacceptable to the S. F. Bay
Chapter SIERRA CLUB without further clarification:
"1. Recommendation to build a new police headquarters or expand
present Hall of Justice facilities, depending upon a cost benefit
analysis and study of functional and spatial requirements (p. 37).
Clarification is requested as to what opportunities there will be for
public hearing and discussion of alternative sites.
"2. Recommendation to build a new permanent heliport and main-
tenance facility in the 'good weather belt along the Bay' (p. 39).
Clarification is requested re. anticipated location of heliport as
well as of emergency optional landing sites.
"The Bay Chapter SIERRA CLUB is appreciative of the fact that the
planners of the Police Facilities Proposal are aware of the need for balance
between the centralization necessary for such police activities as policy
formation, program planning, administration, etc., and the dispersal of
police services necessary for effective local crime control.
"We are wholeheartedly in support of programs to encourage citizen
participation in crime reduction as a long-range Police Department goal
(p. 36). We believe that any program aimed at developing a closer relation-
ship between police personnel and the people they are asked to serve will
result in safer communities and neighborhood parks, as well as in better
supported policemen. The climate then might even be such as to encourage
the implementation of a neighborhood block plan within which concerned and
knowledgeable citizens in each neighborhood would work with the police
assigned to their area for the control of crime."
Mrs. Mirigian, representing the Cayuga Block Club, urged that the Ingleside
District station be retained. While she felt that the Police Department had
given her neighborhood as much protection as possible under present circumstances,
she stated that she had been robbed three times and that the shrubs in front of
her house had been used for dope transfers. If residents of the neighborhood
could be guaranteed that they would have adequate police protection, she doubted
that the type of housing utilized for the police forces would be an issue. She
recognized that Los Angeles, as large as it is, has a centralized station. In
.. :
.' ■■ Lsnnos 9 ■ ....■■'
': ■ ' •
■ ....'• : , ■ . ■ ■ ■"
■ ■ ■ • .: i . moo&S. .1
•' . jfta aJ
: : ■■ ■ ■ _..-■-■■■
.93 tH '•■•''..
"■
■ , ■ ■ . ■
'■.■•'■'■.•
..-•"■
a ■..'•,.'
9V j i
:■•:>'.•■-.■-
' .'
■.-. ■•! .
■• . ■
'-,'.■■. • ; k .
. ■ i
■ | .■ j ■ ■
: ■
■ ■ " '.,:.■■
•' :- <f ■ tli (j ■ 9
' ' ' .. . . ■ .
1
.
..
.
'
■
.
...
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -6- JUNE 13, 1974
San Francisco, she believed the district stations should be eliminated if they
are not important so that the city could save some money; however, if district
stations are needed, it seemed to her that all of the existing facilities should
be retained.
Henrietta Abrams, 821 Cole Street, noted that Park Station had been closed
for a year and remarked that other people in the audience could not possibly
realize the effect which closing of a district station can have on a neighbor-
hood; and she indicated that residents of her neighborhood do not wish to go
through the same experience again. There are a lot of facilities which a neigh-
borhood can do without; but she felt that her district station must be retained
on its present site.
Reverend Lyle W. Grosjean, representing the Ecumenical Ministry in the
Haight Ashbury, proposed that the Commission should do the right thing and table
the staff report until such time as the Police Department has prepared a compre-
hensive and comprehensible organization plan. Until such a plan is available,
discussions of how to house the police force would be premature. He stated that
he was not married to the current situation but rather to a rational approach to
the matter; and the procedures presently being followed did not seem to him to
be logical. He indicated that he was not committed to the concept of 9 district
police stations; and, in fact, his personal inclination was to favor as many as
15 or 20 district police stations.
Commissioner Fleishhacker asked Reverend Grosjean to comment further on the
"irrationality" of the procedures presently being followed by the Commission.
Reverend Grosjean stated that the report which had been prepared by the staff of
the Department of City Planning offered a number of option ranging from one cen-
tralized station to an infinite number of district stations; but the report did
not indicate whether the Police Department is actually headed towards a cen-
tralized station concept or towards a concept which would involve more human
contact, a concept which he personally advocated. Step one of the process should
be to determine what course is to be followed in reorganization of the Police
Department; and only after those decisions have been made would it be rational
to proceed with step two, which would involve the issue of appropriate housing
for the Police Department. In response to a further question raised by Commis-
sioner Fleishhacker, Reverend Grosjean stated that he felt that the public would
support any plan for housing the Police Department which was directly related to
the structure of the reorganized Police Department.
John A. Macauley, representing Save our Neighborhoods (SON), regarded the
major problem area of the Police Department as one of human relations; and he
believed that "grass root" input is needed to resolve those problems. Further-
more, he felt that plans for police facilities should be drawn in terms of human
beings and not merely in terms of brick and concrete.
President Newman stated that he had received a telephone call from Mr.
Macauley requesting that a night meeting be scheduled to receive comments from
the public on the Police Facilities Plan; and he indicated that he had also
. ■ : • . .
■ ■ :
i ■■■
■ ■■ ■ • . ••
• ■ . ■ .
. • . ' . . boor
■
■
■ ,Juo . ■>
: '■ . •
ill
■ . . . .■
■
,
•
3
■ 1
•
.. ■'
'■• '
■.
' •■ '
.
■ ■
'
■ .
■ ■ ••■■■ G
.;..'•'
1 ■ .
- ■ - : • - -■
■
•
■
•
•
rl
■
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -7- JUNE 13, 1974
received a letter from A. A. Roderick, Chairman of the Police Community Relations
Committee for the Taraval district, requesting that an evening meeting be scheduled.
He asked Mr. Macauley if the people whom he represented were still demanding that
a night meeting be held. If so, the members of the Commission would probably
be willing to schedule an evening meeting even though additional meetings cost
the taxpayers money. Mr. Macauley replied that he believed that any evening
meeting would enable the Commission to obtain the maximum community input for
the Police Facilities Plan. He also observed that other organizations such as
the Inner Sunset Action Committee, the Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council, the
San Francisco Industrialists and OMI had requested that an evening meeting be
held.
Commissioner Porter felt that an evening meeting should be scheduled; how-
ever, she hoped that the Commission would concentrate on people who have new
testimony to offer rather than those who had already been heard during the
previous two hearings. She then moved that a special evening meeting be sched-
uled for Thursday, June 20, at 7:30 p.m. in Room 282, City Hall. The motion
was seconded by Commissioner Fleishhacker.
When the question was called, the Commission voted unanimously to schedule
the special meeting as proposed by Commissioner Porter.
President Newman requested Mr. Macauley and other representatives of com-
munity organizations to advise the members of their groups of the evening meeting
and to request that comments already made not be repeated.
Commissioner Fleishhacker, commenting on the fact that there was an obvious
difference of opinion between individuals who felt that a centralized police
system would provide the best service and those who felt that the best service
would result from retention from the present nine district station concept, asked
if there were any way that the Commission could be provided with an analysis of
the relationship between the number and location of police stations and the
service rendered by the Police Department.
Donald M. Scott, Chief of Police, stated that evidence indicates that more
policemen could be placed on beats if district stations were to be closed; how-
ever, he remarked that it was apparent that the public is opposed to the closing
of district stations. He remarked that one of the women who had spoken, had,
in effect, asked for a guarantee that her neighborhood would have no crime in
the future; and his observation was that such a situation could never be reached
unless the people residing in the neighborhood remain vigilant. He indicated
that the police force would do the best that it can to deter crime; however,
they would need the support of the public in their work.
President Newman remarked that his neighborhood had experienced a series
of burglaries and robberies several years ago. At that time, the staff of their
district police station had called a neighborhood meeting and had told residents
of the area what to watch for; and the problem had eventually been overcome. He
wondered if the same sort of program could have been organized without a district
!
MO
•
• '' ' -
. : -
■
■
-
■ -
:;u
■ • • . . ■ .
■ I
•
I
p
I
•
■
...
.■■■■'
i
.■:■-■ : '
. .• •• ■ . ■
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -8- JUNE 13, 1974
station house. Chief Scott replied that the neighborhood concept is being tried
out at the Park Station; and he hoped that the program would be successful.
However, he emphasized that modern communication systems enable the police to
be in immediate contact from any part of the city. He stated that members of
the police force are not so much interested in closing down existing facilities.
However, they do want good facilities and meeting rooms; and he felt that they
should be entitled to such things.
Mrs. Abrams stated that walking policemen had been withdrawn from her street
when Park Station was closed; and she indicated that they were missed. In reply
to a question raised by Dr. Garner, she stated that policemen presently walk
Cole Street every day and every night.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynn E. Pio
Secretary
: ■ . .
■
5
CITY
SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of the Special Meeting held Thursday, June 20, 1974.
The City Planning Commission met pursuant to notice on Thursday, June 20,
1974, at 7:30 p.m. in Room 202, City Hall.
PRESENT: Walter S. Newman, President; Mrs. Charles B. Porter, Vice-
President; John C. Farrell and Virgil Elliott, members of
the City Planning Commission.
ABSENT: Mortimer Fleishhacker, John Ritchie, and Hector E. Rueda, mem-
bers of the City Planning Commission,
The staff of the Department of City Planning was represented by Allan B.
Jacobs, Director of Planning; Lucian Blazej, City Planning Coordinator; and
Lynn E. Pio, Secretary.
Marvin E. Cardoza, a member of the Police Commission was also present.
The Police Department was represented by Chief of Police Donald M. Scott,
Captain Sully, and Lieutenant Jordan.
PUBLIC HEARING ON THE POLICE FACILITIES ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN- -A PROPOSAL FOR CITIZEN REVIEW.
(Continued from meeting of June 13, 1974)
Following introductory remarks by President Newman and Allan L. Jacobs,
Director of Planning, President Newman called on members of the audience who
wished to be heard on this matter.
Audrey Guassardo submitted and summarized the following statement which
had been prepared by Arthur 0 'Flanagan, Chairman of the Sunset -Parks ide
Alcoholism Resources Committee:
"Sunset-Parkside Alcoholism Resources Committee (SPARC) is op-
posed to the closing of district stations for very concrete reasons:
"1. SPARC volunteers operate a Drop-in Center every evening
from 6 PM to midnight at 1990 - 41st Avenue, where alcohol-related
problems can be discussed in a relaxed atmosphere (please see at-
tached SPARC Brochure for further details). One purpose of our
Center is to provide shelter for family members who must leave the
home because of a crisis situation involving alcohol abuse.
"We quote the following statistics given to SPARC in May 1973
by Taraval Station personnel:
'The majority of arrests are from 9 PM to 1 AM in the Sunset.
80% of family disputes have liquor at the bottom of the prob-
lem. Of the arrests in the Sunset, 70% are for drinking and
50% of those arrests are family disputes.
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING -2- JUNE 20, 1974
'The vandalism and fighting that teenagers get into on Friday
and Saturday nights inevitable have alcohol usage as a factor. '
"It is obvious how SPARC and the Police Department in our area can
work together. We are prepared to take these family members off the
hands of the Police Department and give them constructive help. How-
ever, unless the officers know of our Center, they cannot refer people
to us. Continuity of officers assigned to our area is vital to this
project working to the best interest of the people in the community
who are hurting.
"2. If the Youth/Young Adult Alcohol and Related Drug Diversion
Project gets under way, SPARC plans to work very closely with the Po-
lice Department, ENERGY and other related agencies to make it effective
in our community. We need district stations so that we can accomplish
Diversion. Attached statistics from National Council on Alcoholism
indicate that 50% of the children from alcohol-troubled homes grow up
to be alcoholics or to marry one. If we are ever to stop this circu-
latory pattern, it is imperative that all agencies cooperate."
Evelyn Eaton, 155 Jackson Street, stated that she is a sociologist. She in-
dicated that police cooperation with neighborhood groups is particularly important
in the case of young people who abuse the law. She also felt that the police
force today is in a position to expand its functions in a positive direction; how-
ever, if the police force is going to try in a positive way to help youth, it will
have to maintain an esprit de corps in the various neighborhoods of the city. For
those reasons, she was very interested in maintaining the existing district facil-
ities.
Miss Guassardo, speaking in her own behalf, read the following statement:
"While there is probably good economic justification to centrali-
zing police facilities and activities, there is much opposition from
the community standpoint. One objection is the very important psycho-
logical aspect of each neighborhood having 'its own' policemen who can
relate to their unique needs and concerns.
"interaction and cooperation between police and citizens in the neigh-
borhoods can and should result in better understanding and thus improve
working relationships in terms of problem-solving."
Walter J. O'Donnell, representing Self Help for the Aging, noted that a quo-
rum of the Police Commission was not present; and, as a result, he observed that
the Police Commission would not be in a position to take action at the conclusion
of the hearing. President Newman advised Mr. O'Donnell that no action was contem-
plated at the conclusion of the present hearing.
Mr. O'Donnell then stated that senior citizens are opposed to the closing of
existing district stations. He indicated that people often have to go to district
stations to make reports; and, while they do not have far to go at the present
time, the trip could become arduous if some of the district stations were to be
closed.
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING -3- JUNE 20, 1974
Jerry Crowley, representing the San Francisco Police Officers Association,
stated that the position of his organization was reflected in the ballot arguments
in opposition to the closing of Park and Southeast District stations; and he noted
that the voters of the city had taken a stand in opposition to the closing of
those stations. The members of his organization believed that district stations
are an important bridge to the community; and they felt that the concept of cen-
tralization of police facilities is outdated. In his opinion, the plan drafted
by the Department of City Planning was a cold plan in that it bore no relation to
what the police force has to do; and he believed that the issuance of the report
had reinforced the community's opposition to the closing of district stations.
One of his basic criticisms of the report was that it reflected no real in-depth
study of what district stations could become as opposed to what they are at the
present time. He believed that the closing of district stations would be detri-
mental to the safety of police officers and that such closings would bring about
a lack of communication and cooperation with people in the neighborhoods. In con-
clusion, he urged that first priority be given to reorganization of the police De-
partment and that police facilities be considered only when the organization plan
has been completed.
Commissioner Porter remarked that most of the people who had addressed the
Commission had been opposed to the closing of existing district stations. She
stated that she would have personal misgivings if the Richmond station were to be
closed; yet, even with that district station in existence, she had not felt any
"personal" touch. She stated that she does not knot* any of the policemen assign-
ed to the station; and everytime she has called the station, a different policeman
has appeared. She wondered if Mr. Crowley felt that establishment of additional
district stations would help to bring policeman closer to the neighborhoods which
they are assigned to serve.
Mr. Crowley replied that a review of district station operations in other
cities would indicate that the trend in San Francisco should be towards increasing
the number of district stations. However, for the time being, he felt that the
most important thing was to retain the 9 existing stations and to improve their
operation before new district stations are added. He emphasized that the really
important thing was not what the district stations are at present but what they
can become.
Commissioner Porter observed that one of the reasons which had been given
for reducing the number of district stations was that more policemen could be
placed on beats if some of the stations were closed; and she asked Mr. Crowley to
comment on that reasoning. Mr. Crowley stated that he felt that that reasoning
was completely fallacious.
Commissioner Porter then asked Mr. Crowley if he felt that more policemen
should be walking beats. Mr. Crowley replied in the affirmative, indicating that
he walked a beat himself and is thus in a position to know the benefit of it. He
remarked, however, that the trend is to place policemen in 40 mile per hour vehi-
cles where they become impersonal.
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING -4- JUNE 20, 1974
Herbert Ziesch, representing the Police Community Relations Committee for
the Northern Station, advised the Commission that the members of his committee
were opposed to the closing of Northern Station or any of the other 9 existing
district stations.
Leland Barrett, 6207 Geary Boulevard, stated that he was appalled that the
city was once again considering the possible elimination of two of the district
police stations. He stated that he had fought to retain the Park and Southeast
district stations; and he failed to see how elimination of any of the district
facilities could benefit the city.
Richard H. Tooker, 22 Lee Avenue, stated that he would not wish to see the
Ingleside District station closed; and he doubted that anyone in the neighborhood
would be in favor of such a proposal. He remarked that the Police Department has
tended to retreat more and more into "fortresses"; and he felt that implementation
of the plan presently under consideration would result in further withdrawal of
the police force from the community. He observed that the Continental European
theory of police activities is that the police serve for the protection and "con-
trol" of the population whereas the theory of police activities in the English-
speaking world is that police serve to protect and "assist" the population; and he
believed that the residents of his neighborhood wished to have a police force
which in appearance and in fact would assist them.
A.R. Roderick, representing the Police Community Relations Committee for the
Taraval Station, advised the Commission that the members of his committee were in
favor of the program recommendations for neighborhood patrol services and auxiliary
support facilities which were reflected on pages 30 thru 40 of the staff report;
and they hoped that those recommendations would be put into effect. In order to
meet the objective of expanding the patrol force of the Police Department, he be-
lieved that it might be wise to provide more district stations and to increase the
number of vehicles as well as the number of foot patrolmen. He also suggested
that small scooters might be used on an experimental basis. While he felt that it
is a good thing to see footmen on their beats, he remarked that they are not as
effective as they should be under present circumstances; and, for that reason, he
felt that it was extremely important that the patrol force should be expanded. He
also felt that cooperative use of police facilities is desirable and that it should
be encouraged. He asked the Commission to keep in mind that there is a need for
adequate off-street parking at district stations; and he suggested that what the
community wants is "continuity" and not "anonymity". In conclusion, he suggested
that the Commission could save time in the future if it were to discuss proposed
plans with community groups before publishing them in the form of reports.
Steven Kever, a member of Save Our Neighborhoods, the Haight Ashbury Neigh-
borhood Council, and Citizens for Justice, advised the Commission that the members
of Citizens for Justice, wished to discuss issues other than those raised in the
staff report. They felt that reorganization was more important than "brick and
mortar"; and they believed that the Police Department should be reorganized before
physical facilities are considered.
..
'
'
\
T.
.-. ' ' ' ' ■' I : ... "
:■■• " ' . t ' - . ' .
■ ' ■- -Lr ' -. ; ' • ■
. V ■••■. . • '■• ■
..' ' .■':•'■'. ! : : . ■■• 3-ti ' .'
■ .-■ ; i ': ■ " f©i ; :_. . .-. d: u ivfil n. • u«w
." ■ - ' ' i .
,•."■'" ■-", '■.■!'■ ■ FO ' b.'j .■■•■_. :;Xq.
' "• ■' . '••'.;■•■••-'''■.■' • • '•' - ■• . ':
• ■ ■ . .' : ''. \ -.._..../•: .:v • ■
1j ■ • • ' -'■' ■ . ■ --. . , ■ ■ . o "Jotj;
•; .""■ " '• " ■ ' •"
.mt ■ ' . ' a :. i " .. '" !' '.'>.-
•.-■.-■ , . •' ' ' " •■ j , ■ ■''■'■ '■••.;■''
'■-. ' ' '■'■'' ■"-'■ ' ■•■ :■■ '• ■■ ■ .
■ - ■ ■ -.:■'■' ■-.'; : ■ . n .e . : -. v. ' ■ -■
8 r ■- ' ■ "" V; '.•■■•".'■:''■ ' .-•'.' ' '
■ '. .."■.■■■: • ./ rj.-j • ■. . _j i ' /;.v;j ';
''■.■' • '.' '''•■'.''.:. 9V.i
. • ':',"., -. " ■ ■ , ■■•■ 1 ' ' ..
• ' ' ' ' ' ;,<
■ t "I 191 ■■■':■■ $6 bit. 13
• • ' '': ' " *' ! ■ ■ ■ ■ \
:...'' ' ■ , . . i
- • ■ ra' J , ..
' • -
d a q ■ ...■•■
:'v- ^ : " " ,93>i.l; . • i - . -. lit fi
:. ', ,-' '■ ' ' :' M •■•■ j» -Oj .■-■■:- •/>■.'■■' "; ' • '
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING -5- JUNE 20, 1974
Rhoda Haberman, representing the Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Law Project,
stated that her objection to the staff report was basic and simple: plans for
housing the Police Department should not be made until decisions have been made
with regard to reorganization of the department. She remarked that the people of
San Francisco have been waiting for more than two years for the reorganization
study; and she felt that the city's failure to undertake the study reflected a
contempt for the voters. Since the voters had demanded the re-opening of Park
and Southeast District Stations, she regarded any plan involving the closing of
district police stations to be a "dead issue"; and the only issues worthy of dis-
cussion at the present time were whether existing stations should be relocated
and whether additional district stations should be constructed. She suggested that
the plans which had been prepared by the staff of the Department of City Planning
be shelved indefinitely.
Rachel Kivler, representing the Gates Block Club, remarked that more muggings
are taking place everyday; and she felt that more police protection is definitely
needed in the neighborhoods. She stated that a lot of ladies in her neighborhood
are now afraid to go out alone at night; and some of them view the neighborhood as
being unsafe even in daytime hours. Under the circumstances, she felt that there
is a need for more foot patrolmen; and she suggested that they should be kept in
neighborhood areas where people can see them since even the mere presence of a po-
liceman can bring peace of mind.
Albert Meakin felt that public relations are by far the most important fac-
tor in crime prevention; and he believed that the way police public relations have
been handled in San Francisco was almost criminal. He advised the Commission that
he had attended meetings at Northern Station on Ellis Street and had found the
station to be an absolute disgrace; and, even though 1G neighborhood organizations
and merchant groups had addressed a letter to the Board of Supervisors requesting
that public meeting space be provided in police facilities, the letter had achiev-
ed no results. However, if new police facilities are constructed, he felt that it
was important that rooms for public meetings should be provided since it is impor-
tant to instill in the community a feeling that they are working with the police.
Commissioner Porter stated that she has always had quick and courteous re-
sponse from the Police Department whenever she has required its services; and she
stated that she was of the opinion that a policeman's job is one of the most diffi-
cult and least appreciated forms of employment which one might choose.
Mr. Meakin stated that he had not disagreed with the comments made by Commis-
sioner Porter. He indicated that he, also, had never experienced anything but the
best of relations with policemen on the beat; however, he did feel that public re-
lations at the top level of the Police Department had heen extremely poor.
■'
i : '
.'■■'..: ' :■
' ' • ■' ' '
...
•'..-■'. ■ ■ ' • ' ' .1
■ - f*J ■ ■ ■ ,'■
' _ •'■ ••• " ■ :•"*.'..'.' ■• . '
'■'■-■; \ ■. ■ :., ■ '■■ rl .': • ' • .;;:'.. .
•- ''■
/ • >.si ■ - ■■ ••'. v. aai . ■ .<
• ■ ■ ' • '■ "r •■ - ' ' ■' ' '; '• ■.. , ' . " •
1 . ■ ' ,; : -' '
...'.■-' ' • ( .■ ■ .- ■■■'.
■ ■ '•■'.-•'.'.' ' "' ■ l ■;'
■ . ■' . '•- : brt£:
S .," ■ i
'"
■ ' . . • . • . , '
FJ ' •'. ' ■ ..
■ ' ; ' : ' ■• ■ b: '.......,.'
. '■ -' ■"•' .''''■;
-'■'.'" "- -'• '" : ' ■ •
■ • • . ■■ fci e-q Mots.: ....
-' • -' ' ' '■ ..
■'-.':. ' • ' ' ' " ;' •' ' ' •
•' BSSOJ ; . • .
' " '■ ' ■■ '
■'
1 ■••';■ ..
IIINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING -6- JUNE 20, 1974
John' Macauley, 199 Edgewood Avenue, read and submitted the following state-
ment:
"I have said previously that I am the Executive Secretary of Save
Our Neighborhoods and belong to other neighborhood organizations and
youth groups but - because llr. Newman asked us to speak on a different
subject than the ones previously commented on, I can speak to you to-
night only as an individual. In this respect I can comment that I was
a police reporter for a number of years and that my more recent exper-
ience with the Police Administration as adversaries and rank and file
patrolmen in the POA and elsewhere have led me to one general conclu-
sion: responsibility for the best possible implementation for police
protection and services in the neighborhoods must lie with the citizens
and not with the policemen. Generally, we citizens only exercise this
responsibility when we feel we are going to lose something like a police
station and the security and personal relationships which go with it.
Therefore, help that the average citizen gives to the average police-
man is generally fragmentary and spontaneous at the very best. I feel
that the Planning Department who are professional in this sort of thing,
should act as a catalyst to bring policemen and people together to deter-
mine how lay people can work with police, help police and build in police
a fondness and a loyalty for the neighborhoods that they work in. If
such a 'program outreach' can be done, then the recommendations which
would follow could be coupled with an amended version of the Police
Facilities Plan and police facilities would have a real meaning.
"The Police Facilities Plan is well laid out and could be an excel-
lent plan, but one half of what must go with this plan is missing and
that half deals with public involvement."
Tom McCarthy, representing the Haight-Ashbury Neighborhood Council, read and
submitted the following statement on behalf of the Board of Directors of his or-
ganization.
"The Police Facilities Proposal marks a new type of planning activ-
ity. It is not a 'plan' but a series of proposals 'for citizen review'.
Yet the proposals for review go in only one direction -- fewer neigh-
borhood police stations, a direction that this Council and the voters
of the city have rejected. These proposals arc the third attempt by
the city administration in two years to reduce the number of district
stations.
"First, the Police Commission ramrodded through the closings of too
stations illegally. That was stopped in court and at the polling place.
San Francisco's voters made it clear that they wanted to keep all nine
stations.
"Earlier this year police and planning administrators came back with
a 'seismic survey' study, designed once again to close district police
stations. That too was stopped.
1H1IUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING -7- JUNE 20, 1974
"Now, the Police Facilities Proposal. This Council, and a majority
of San Francisco's voters favor reorganizing the police force to bet-
ter serve the needs of San Francisco, Three years ago, Proposition E
mandated a reorganization of the police. No plan has been put before
the people to carry out that clear mandate.
"The present Police Facilities Proposal is illogical planning, if
it is planning at all. First, reorganize the police as mandated, then
consider what physical configuration is needed to carry out the results
of that reorganization. Form follows function, not the other way around.
"This Council urges the police to invite citizen participation, first
in reorganizing the police. Then, and only then, does it make sense to
talk about police facilities."
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, responded to some of the comments made
by members of the audience. During the course of the public hearing, three of four
basic themes had been expressed. The first theme was that people wish to have more
police protection. The second was that people felt that the Police Department
should have better relations and better communication with people in the community;
however, while police facilities planning could help to some extent to achieve that
end, it could never provide the whole answer to the problem, A third theme was
that more neighborhood police stations should be constructed even though they would
increase the cost of operating the Police Department. A fourth theme was that the
plan for reorganization of the Police Department should have been formulated prior
to publication of the plan for police facilities. However, as he had stated during
the hearing on June 5, the relationship between organizational planning and facili-
ties planning is always "cyclical," with organization having a tendency to change
drastically three or four times during the life of a given facility. The message
which he got from those facts was that buildings ought to be designed in such a way
that they will be flexible and adaptable to organizational changes. He stated that
he wished that more members of the public had joined llr. Roderick in commenting on
some of the details of the plan and suggesting features which should be incorpora-
ted into any district station regardless of the number of such stations. He advised
the audience that the staff of the Department of City Planning would continue to re-
view written comments received prior to July 5; and he indicated that the staff
would present its revised recommendations to the Commission at its regular meeting
on July 25.
Police Commissioner Cardoza advised the audience that the Police Commission
had approved a reorganizational study and had transmitted a request for funding
to City Hall; and he indicated that the study would be implemented whevever it is
funded.
President Newman asked if a major reorganization of the Police Department
was being contemplated. Commissioner Cardoza replied in the affirmative.
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING -8- JUNE 20, 1974
Police Chief Donald Scott stated that he was sympathetic to the public de-
sire for retention of nine district stations; however, he emphasized that the dis-
trict stations should be located properly and that they should contain facilities
for community relations activities. Most importantly, the district facilities
should be of high quality since the men on the force deserve no less.
President Newman announced that this matter would be taken under advisement
until the Commission's regular meeting on July 25, 1974.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynn E. Pio
Secretary
Mif
SAN FRANCISCO
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of the Regular Meeting held Thursday, June 27, 1974-
The City Planning Commission met pursuant to notice on Thursday,
June 27, 1974, at 1:45 p.m. in Room 282, City Hall.
PRESENT: Walter S. Newman, President; Mrs. Charles B. Porter, Vice
President; John C. Farrell, Mortimer Fleishhacker, Thomas
G. Miller, John Ritchie, and Hector E. Rueda, members of
the City Planning Commission.
ABSENT: None
The staff of the Department of City Planning was represented by Allan
B. Jacobs, Director of Planning; R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director -
Implementation (Zoning Administrator); Katherine Benziger, Planner II; Ruth
Friedlander, Planner II; Paul Rosetter, Planner II; and Lynn E. Pio, Secretary,
Donald Canter represented the San Francisco Examiner; Dan Borsuk
represented the San Francisco Progress; and Larry Liebert represented the
San Francisco Chronicle.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved by Commissioner Fleishhacker, seconded by Commissioner
Farrell, and carried unanimously that the minutes of the meeting of June 5,
1974, be approved as submitted.
CURRENT MATTERS
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, reminded the Implementation
Committee (Commissioners Fleishhacker, Porter, Rueda) of a meeting scheduled
on Friday, June 28, at 12:00 noon.
The Director informed the Commission that the City Attorney's Office
had advised that financial statements must be filed with the County Clerk
during September. The data submitted must be current as of September 1.
The Director informed the Commission that it appears that a slightly
modified version of Proposition "C", which would have established an open
space acquisition fund, will appear on the November ballot.
At 1:55 p.m. President Newman announced a five minute recess. The
Commission reconvened at 2:00 p.m. and proceeded with hearing of the remain-
der of the agenda. At this point in the proceedings, Commissioner Ritchie
arrived in the meeting room and assumed his seat at the Commission table.
■
'
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -2- JUNE 27, 1974
CU74.25 - 823 EUCLID AVENUE, SOUTH SIDE, 95 FEET WEST OF PALM AVENUE.
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR A RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY
FOR 8 PERSONS; IN AN R-3 DISTRICT.
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director - Implementation (Zoning Admin-
istrator), referred to land use and zoning maps to describe the subject
property. He stated that the facility, which is operated by the San
Francisco Boys Home, currently has 8 boys living in it. It has been in
operation 1 1/2 years and has no record of having caused problems. At the
preliminary hearing, which was held on May 29, the applicant and one addi-
tional person had spoken in favor of the proposal. Two people, speaking
neutrally, had expressed concern as to the matter of operation. Two petitions
from property owners within a 300 foot radius of the subject property had
been filed with a total of 16 signatures in support of the facility; and one
letter had been received from the Jordan Park Association stating that approx-
imately 50 neighbors have voted to oppose the facility at a neighborhood
meeting which was held in their area. In addition to the support which had
been expressed for this specific facility, the Department of City Planning
had received 28 letters generally supporting all four of the facilities pres-
ently operated by the San Francisco Boys Home. Petitions had also been sub-
mitted with 27 signatures of neighbors of two of the organization's existing
facilities supporting all four facilities which appeared on today's Commission
agenda. In addition, four persons had spoken at the preliminary hearing in
general support of all four of the applications. Mr. Steele recommended that
the application be approved subject to seven specific conditions which were
contained in a draft resolution which he had prepared for consideration by
the Commission. After summarizing the conditions, he recommended that the
draft resolution be adopted.
President Newman called for a show of hands of individuals present in
the audience in support of the application; and a number of people responded.
He then asked for a show of hands of those in opposition to the application
and received no response.
Commissioner Porter asked if a representative of the Jordan Park Improve-
ment Association was present and received no response. She then asked if any
of the people who were present in support of the application were also members
of the Jordan Park Improvement Association. Again the response was negative.
After further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Fleishhacker,
seconded by Commissioner Rueda, and carried unanimously that the draft res-
olution be adopted as City Planning Commission Resolution No. 7189 and that
the application be approved subject to the conditions which had been recom-
mended by Mr. Steele.
CU74.26 - 750 33RD AVENUE, EAST SIDE, 275 FEET NORTH OF CABRILLO STREET.
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR A RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY
FOR 8 PERSONS; IN AN R-2 DISTRICT.
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director - Implementation (Zoning Admin-
istrator), referred to land use and zoning maps to describe the subject
: >
■
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -3- JUNE 27, 1974
property. He Indicated that the existing facility, which is operated by
the San Francisco Boys Home, currently has eight boys in residence. He stated
that it has been in operation for 1 1/2 years and has no record of having
caused problems. At the preliminary hearing, which was held on May 29, two
persons had spoken in opposition to the application, one because the property
is zoned R-2 and the other because of a fear that the present use of the
facility would cause property values in the area to rise. A petition had
been filed with nine signatures of residents within a 300 foot radius of the
subject site in support of the application; and three letters had been received
in opposition. In addition, as he had noted during the hearing on the previous
case, a number of individuals had expressed their general support for all four
of the facilities operated by the San Francisco Boys Home which appeared on
the Commission agenda. He recommended that the application be approved subject
to seven specific conditions which were contained in a draft resolution which
he had prepared for consideration by the Commission. After summarizing the
conditions, he recommended that the draft resolution be adopted.
President Newman asked if the conditions which had been recommended by
Mr. Steele would be acceptable to the applicant. Mr. O'Brien, representing
the applicant, replied in the affirmative.
Marvin Mizis, 25 Chabot Terrace, spoke in opposition to the subject
application, not because he was opposed to the specific facility under con-
sideration but because the subject property is located in an R-2 district.
He stated that he was opposed to a facility being proposed in an R-2 district
at 2877 Turk Street; and he felt that he should speak in opposition to the
application presently under consideration because failure to do so might
amount to a waiver of his right to object later to action being taken later
on the application involving the Turk Street property. He advised the Com-
mission that Section 203.2 of the City Planning Code specifies the uses which
may be considered as conditional uses in R-2 districts; and, since that section
of the Code contains no reference to residential care facilities, he thought
that it was clear that the Commission could not hear or grant applications
for such uses in R-2 districts. He stated that he had been advised by Mr.
Steele that the previous Zoning Administrator had made a determination ten
years or more ago that residential facilities can be considered as conditional
uses in R-2 districts; but he had not been furnished with a copy of that rul-
ing. In any case, the Board of Supervisors had acted in July, 1964, to amend
Section 203.2 of the City Planning Code; and Residential Care Homes had not
been included in that amendment.
Mr. Steele stated that Section 307(a) of the City Planning Code gives
the Zoning Administrator responsibility for interpreting the provisions of the
Code. In accordance with that provision, his predecessor, Mr. Fisher, had
determined that residential care homes could be considered as conditional uses
in R-2 districts; and he indicated that he had seen fit to sustain that Inter-
pretation.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -4- JUNE 27, 1974
Commissioner Fleishhacker asked how many cases involving residential
care homes in R-2 districts had been acted upon by the Commission during the
past ten years. Mr. Steele estimated that the Commission may have acted on
40 or 50 such cases during that time.
Commissioner Fleishhacker then asked if the interpretation of the Zon-
ing Administrator had been challenged. Mr. Steele replied in the negative.
He also advised the Commission that the City Attorney's Office was aware of
the interpretation which had been made by the Zoning Administrator and had
indicated its support of that position.
No one else was present in the audience to speak in opposition to the
subject application.
After further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Rueda, seconded
by Commissioner Fleishhacker, and carried unanimously that the draft resolu-
tion be adopted as City Planning Resolution No. 7190 and that the application
be approved subject to the conditions which had been recommended by Mr. Steele,
CU74.27 - 4645 CALIFORNIA STREET, SOUTH SIDE, 55 FEET EAST OF 9TH
AVENUE.
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR A RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY
FOR 8 PERSONS; IN AN R-3 DISTRICT.
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director - Implementation (Zoning Admin-
istrator), referred to land use and zoning maps to describe the subject pro-
perty. He stated that the subject facility, which is operated by the San
Francisco Boys Home, currently has an occupancy of eight boys. It has been
in operation one year and has no record of having caused problems. At the
preliminary hearing, which was held on May 29, one person in addition to the
applicant had spoken in support of the application. No one had spoken in
opposition. A petition had been filed with seven signatures from neighbors
supporting the facility; and, in addition, a number of people had expressed
their general support for all four of the facilities operated by the San
Francisco Boys Home which appeared on today's Commission agenda. He recom-
mended that the application be approved subject to seven specific conditions
which were contained in a draft resolution which he had prepared for consid-
eration by the Commission.
President Newman asked if the conditions which had been recommended by
Mr. Steele would be satisfactory to the applicant. Mr. O'Brien, representing
the applicant, replied in the affirmative. There was no one present to speak
in opposition to this application.
After discussion it was moved by Commissioner Porter, seconded by
Commissioner Rueda, and carried unanimously that the draft resolution be
adopted as City Planning Commission Resolution No. 7191 and that the applica-
tion be approved subject to the conditions which had been recommended by
Mr. Steele.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -5- JUNE 27, 1974
CU74.28 - 2877 TURK STREET, SOUTH SIDE, 75 FEET EAST OF PARKER AVENUE.
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR A RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY
FOR 8 PERSONS; IN AN R-2 DISTRICT.
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director - Implementation (Zoning Admin-
istrator), referred to land use and zoning maps to describe the subject
property. He stated that the existing facility, which is operated by the
San Francisco Boys Home, currently has an occupancy of six boys. He indicated
that the facility has been in operation for approximately 2 1/2 months and
has no record of having caused any problems. At the preliminary hearing,
which was held on May 29, six individuals had spoken in opposition to the
facility, claiming that the use would have a detrimental effect on the sub-
ject neighborhood which exists as a "virgin island" of R-2 residential devel-
opment surrounded by institutional uses. A total of sixteen letters and a
petition with six signatures had been filed by neighbors specifically support-
ing the facility; and seventeen letters and a 123 signature petition had been
filed opposing the facility. In addition, a number of people had indicated
a general support for all four of the facilities operated by the San Francisco
Boys Home which appeared on today's Commission agenda. Mr, Steele stated that
the present occupancy by six boys is a legal permitted use in an R-2 district;
however, since the applicant intended to house eight persons in the facility,
the conditional use authorization would be necessary. He recommended that the
application be approved subject to seven specific conditions which were con-
tained in a draft resolution which he had prepared for consideration by the
Commission.
Edward J. Nevin, Attorney for the applicant, stated that he would waive
his right to make a presentation at this point; however, he asked that he be
given the right to respond to comments made by individuals speaking in opposi-
tion to the application if he so desired.
Marvin Mizis, 24 Chabot Terrace, stated that he was speaking for a group
of neighbors who reside in the subject neighborhood. The area is known as
University Terrace; and he regarded it as somewhat of an "ecological island".
He indicated that people whom he represented were familiar with the work of
the San Francisco Boys Home; and, as citizens and residents, they supported
the work of that organization. However, while they did not oppose the func-
tion of the organization, they were opposed to the continued existence of the
subject facility since they felt that it was improperly located. While the
San Francisco Boys Home might feel that the subject building is suitable for
their needs, residents of the neighborhood were of the opinion that the loca-
tion is not suitable because of the effect which the facility could have on
the neighborhood. While Mr. Steele had advised the Commission that the present
occupancy by six people is legal, he disagreed; and he felt that occupancy
by six individuals should require conditional use authorization, also.
Commissioner Fleishhacker asked Mr. Mizis if he felt that a conditional
use authorization would be required even if the facility were to house only
one or two boys. Mr. Mizis replied in the affirmative. While State
.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -6- JUNE 27, 1974
legislation had been passed which specifies that care homes for 6 persons
or less cannot be prohibited, that legislation had not taken away the city's
right to follow its own procedures in approving such uses; and he believed
that the City Planning Code requires Conditional Use authorization even for
residential care facilities housing 6 or less people.
Mr. Steele stated that he had determined, in conjunction with the City
Attorney's Office, that no Conditional Use authorization is required for
residential care facilities for 6 people or less in R-l-D, R-l, and R-2
districts.
Commissioner Ritchie observed that a number of letters had been received
in support of the subject application; and he proceeded to read portions of
letters which had been received from Benjamin H. Swig and from Archbishop
Mc Gucken of the San Francisco Archdiocese. He noted that no complaints had
been registered regarding the operation of the facility; and, under the
circumstances, he failed to understand the reason for Mr. Mizis opposition
to the application.
Mr. Mizis replied that he did not in any way question the value of the
work which is being done by the San Francisco Boys Home; and he indicated
that individuals who were opposing the subject application because of the
location of the facility had supported other applications which had been
filed by the organization. He acknowledged that there were letters from a
number of prominent individuals in support of the application; but he empha-
sized that no letters of support were on file from individuals who reside in
the subject neighborhood.
Commissioner Porter advised Mr. Mizis that the Commission had received
a letter in support of the subject application from a realtor who lives on
Turk Street in the same block in which the subject facility is located.
Thor Firing, 55 Temescal Terrace, stated that he objected to the appli-
cant's proposal for a number of reasons. He advised the Commission that
University Terrace is a residential "island" surrounded by institutional
uses; and, like other islands, the neighborhood has a very fragile ecology.
He stated that the neighborhood is primarily single-family residential in
character with 68.4% of the 144 structures in the area being single-family
dwellings, 32.4% of the buildings being flats and 2.87. of the buildings being
apartments; and only one of the apartment buildings is located in the R-2
portion of the neighborhood. He indicated that residents of the neighborhood
had adapted themselves to a continual flow of students; but they continued
to look forward to peace and quiet on evenings and on weekends. Having
adapted to that point, they would very strongly resent any influence which
might upset the balance which has been achieved. He stated that he had chosen
to purchase property in the subject neighborhood because it is a desirable
place to live; and he felt that the quality of the neighborhood would be upset
by any conditional use authorization which might be granted by the Commission.
;
i
. ■ ■ - i
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -7- JUNE 27, 1974
Commissioner Fleishhacker stated that he had received a letter from
Mr. Firing which had been typical of many of the letters which he had received.
The two basic points which were made in the letter was that any change would
be undesirable and that approval of the subject conditional use would inev-
itably lead to granting of additional conditional use authorizations in the
future; however, no reasons had been given for those opinions. Furthermore,
the letter had stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires applicants to dem-
onstrate that a proposed conditional use is both necessary and desirable for
a neighborhood; but the actual wording of the Code is that a showing must be
made that the development is necessary or_ desirable for, and compatible with,
the neighborhood or the community. He observed that it was obvious that Mr.
Firing had misquoted the Code in such a way as to favor his position.
Mr. Firing acknowledged that he had incorrectly substituted the word
"and" for the word "or"; however, the distinction between the words "neighbor-
hood" and "community" was still unclear to him.
Commissioner Fleishhacker observed that it was apparent that Mr. Firing
had made no distinction between the words "neighborhood" and "community";
however, the Commission's interpretation of the language was that the "com-
munity" is something larger than the "neighborhood".
Mr. Firing stated that his sentiments remained the same even though he
might have misquoted City Planning Code; and he felt that approval of the
subject application would put pressures on the neighborhood for future ap-
proval of conditional use applications for fraternities, boarding houses and
other similar types of uses which could be most detrimental to the area.
Furthermore, he believed that it would be difficult for the applicant to
demonstrate that the proposed facility would be necessary or desirable for
the neighborhood.
Commissioner Porter remarked that no complaints had been registered
against the facility while it has been occupied by 6 boys; and she emphasized
that approval of the subject application would authorize only 2 additional
boys to be housed in the building.
Mr. Firing replied that the facility has been in existence for only a
short time.
President Newman asked if the facility had influenced the ecology or
the environment of the neighborhood during the two and one-half months that
it has been in existence. Mr. Firing replied that he believed that the
facility had threaten the neighborhood by establishing a precedent; however,
he indicated that he lives too far away from the facility to have been bothered
by any noise which it might had generated.
Commissioner Farrell asked Mr. Firing if he felt that the neighborhood
would be threatened if a large family were to move into the area. After
Mr. Firing had replied in the negative, Commissioner Farrell asked how a
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -8- JUNE 27, 1974
home with 8 boys in residence would be different from a large family. Mr.
Firing replied that he was more concerned about the actual precedent which
would be established rather than the use itself.
Mr. Mizis emphasized that residents of the neighborhood were not
objecting to the nature of the proposed use or to the operation of the
existing facility. He stated that the use is basically desirable; and he
confirmed that the neighborhood had not had nor did it expect to have any
trouble from the facility. The San Francisco Boys Home hires competent
staff people; and he felt that it was possible that they might control their
boys better than some parents. The opposition of the neighborhood was based
on the fact that approval of the subject application would act as a "wedge"
for approval of similar uses in the future which would tend to break up the
ne ighborhood .
Clarence R. Stern, 35 Roselyn Terrace, stated that he had no objections
to the purposes and intent of the San Francisco Boys Home. However, he
noted that most of the applications being considered by the Commission in-
volved R-3 districts; and he did not feel that such facilities should be
located on properties which are zoned R-2. He remarked that it has been the
policy of the Commission to "down-zone" residential neighborhoods and to
narrow the uses which are permitted in such areas in order to protect the
quality of the city's neighborhoods; and he remarked that it is facilities
such as the one presently being considered which causes neighborhoods to
deteriorate, encouraging people to leave the city for the suburbs. He stated
that the subject neighborhood is centrally located and well maintained and
has retained its value; and he believed that the quality of the neighborhood
would be threatened by approval of the subject application. Once dwellings
are used for other purposes, they are never restored to their original use;
and he believed that the house on the subject property would never again be
used for residential purposes if the subject application were to be approved.
Furthermore, if the application were to be approved, the value of the subject
property would increase tremendously while the value of adjoining properties
would be depressed. As a result, present residents of a neighborhood would
move to other areas; and the quality of the neighborhood would deteriorate.
He urged that the integrity of the R-2 zoning district be preserved and that
the subject application be disapproved.
Commissioner Rueda emphasized that the issue before the Commission
concerned boys who have a right to live in a decent environment. While Mr.
Stern had stated that he supported the work of the San Francisco Boys Home,
he had objected to the facility in his own neighborhood; yet, the facility
would not change the zoning of the property or visibly affect the character
of the neighborhood or even of the house being occupied by the boys.
Mr. Stern stated that he did not object to the proposed facility per se;
however, he opposed the granting of a conditional use authorization for the
facility because he believed that the granting of such an authorization
would open the door for approval of similar authorizations in the future.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -9- JUNE 27, 1974
Commissioner Ritchie remarked that it was of no significance to him
whether the subject property were zoned R-2 or R-3; and he indicated that
he would not object to location of the subject facility in an R-l district
as long as the facility is properly operated and as long as the boys housed
in the facility are well cared for. In fact, he would welcome such a facility
into his own neighborhood.
Mr. Mizis stated that he was not opposed to improving the lot of
unfortunate boys; however, residents of the subject neighborhood, who have
a sizable investment in the area, were appealing to the Commission to protect
their small neighborhood from the particular use presently under consideration.
He observed that the Department of City Planning1 s Urban Design Plan had
stated that "San Francisco draws much of its strength and vitality from the
quality of its neighborhoods"; and he emphasized that 123 residents of the
subject neighborhood had petitioned the Commission to disapprove the subject
application. He felt that the applicant had not borne the burden of proving
to the Commission that the proposed use would satisfy the criteria established
for conditional uses in Section 303 of the City Planning Code. The first of
those criteria was that the proposed use be found necessary and desirable for,
and compatible with, the neighborhood or the community; and he pointed out
that 123 petitioners were of the opinion that the proposed use would not be
compatible with their neighborhood. The second criteria was that the use
should not be detrimental to the health, safety, convenience or general wel-
fare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property,
improvements or potential development in the vicinity; and residents of the
subject neighborhood felt that approval of the subject application would inev-
itably change the character of the neighborhood by establishing a precedent
for future approval of proposals to use single family homes in the area for
fraternities, offices, etc. The third criteria was that the use should
comply with the applicable provisions of the City Planning Code and that
it should not adversely affect the Master Plan; and he observed that the
proposed use would not comply with the City Planning Code unless the Com-
mission should grant the Conditional Use Authorization being requested.
Edward J. Nevin, Attorney for the applicant, emphasized that both the
Zoning Administrator and the City Attorney's office had taken the position
that the Commission could legally authorize the proposed use in an R-2
district. Furthermore, he felt that State law clearly makes the present
occupancy of the facility by 6 boys legal even though that law would allow
the Commission to establish conditions to govern the operation of the facility.
He felt that the "domino theory" of rapid change in the neighborhood which
would be generated by approval of the subject application should be disre-
garded; and, unless residents of the subject neighborhood could demonstrate
that their neighborhood is unique from other neighborhoods of the city, their
position that the use is good but that the location is wrong should be re-
garded as untenable. He advised the Commission that the San Francisco Boys
Home had changed from a large operation into an operation housed in smaller
facilities in order to avoid the unnatural atmosphere of a large institution;
and the present goal of the organization is to place needy boys in homes
which have a family environment. He stated that there was no indication
■■
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -10- JUNE 27, 1974
that the subject facility in any way threatened the neighborhood in which
it is located; and he remarked that opponents to the application had not
made a showing that the facility would be a threat to the area.
Commissioner Fleishhacker, noting that a statement had been made by
opponents to the application to the effect that a considerable amount of
money would have to be spent to remodel the building for the proposed use
and that the nature of the remodeling would be such that the building could
never be reconverted for single family occupancy, asked what type of remodel-
ing would actually be required.
Another representative of the applicant who was present in the meeting
room replied that State law requires the installation of a "life safety
system" in residential care facilities. Such a system involves the installa-
tion of solid-core doors and sprinklers, but it does not inherently change
the nature of the building. In reply to a further question raised by Com-
missioner Fleishhacker, he stated that installation of the "life safety
system" would cost $10,000 or $12,000.
Murray Friedling, 2853 Turk Boulevard, advised the Commission that the
subject neighborhood is unique in one aspect which had not yet been mentioned,
i.e., it has no other children of the same age as those who would be resid-
ing in the proposed facility. Under the circumstances, he felt that it would
be better for the facility to be located in an area where the boys could
meet their peers.
President Newman, observing that one of the principal objections to
the proposed use was that it would be located in an R-2 district, asked how
many residential care homes have been approved as Conditional Uses in R-2
districts by the Commission in the past. Mr. Steele replied that most of
the residential care homes which have been approved by the Commission have
been located in R-2 districts. A sizable- number of such facilities have
also been approved in R-3 districts*
President Newman then stated that he had been given a map by the staff
of the Department of City Planning which showed the location of 400 residen-
tial care homes in San Francisco; and he asked how many of those homes are
located in R-2 districts. Mr. Steele replied that approximately 50% of the
homes shown on the map are located in R-2 districts.
Mr. Mizis remarked that residential care homes may house elderly, men-
tally retarded, or other types of individuals; and he felt that a more
pertinent consideration would be the number of residential care homes for
boys ranging in age from 13 to 18 years which had been approved by the Com-
mission in R-2 districts.
Mr. Steele stated that he did not know the specific number of such
facilities which had been approved by the Commission in R-2 districts; how-
ever, he noted that the Commission had approved such a facility earlier in
the afternoon.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -11- JUNE 27, 1974
Commissioner Porter moved that the application be approved subject to
the conditions which had been recommended by Mr. Steele. She stated that
she had long been familiar with the problems faced by the subject neighbor-
hood, such as parking congestion; and she indicated that she would have been
more sympathetic to those who had spoken in opposition to the application
if the proposed facility were to be located in the middle of a very charming
single-family residential area. However, she pointed out that the subject fa-
cility is located on Turk Boulevard, an 80 foot wide street; and Lone Mountain Col-
lege is located on the opposite side of the street. The Commission had been
advised by the City Attorney's office that the present operation with 6 boys
could continue to exist as a principle permitted use; and, as a result, the
real issue before the Commission was whether permission should be granted
to increase the occupancy of the facility to 8 boys. She felt that the condi-
tions which had been recommended by Mr. Steele would provide adequate protec-
tion for the neighborhood; and she noted that the Conditional Use authorization
could be terminated if those conditions should be violated. In the meantime,
she believed that the boys being cared for by the San Francisco Boys Home
should have the right to live in a pleasant environment just like anyone else.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ritchie.
'" When the question was called, the Commission voted unanimously to adopt
the draft resolution as City Planning Resolution No. 7192 and to approve the
application subject to the conditions which had been recommended by Mr. Steele.
CU74.13 - 207 MIRAMAR AVENUE, WEST SIDE 50 FEET NORTH OF HOLLOWLY
AVENUE.
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR A RESIDENTIAL CARE
FACILITY FOR 8 PERSONS; IN AN R-3 DISTRICT.
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director - Implementation (Zoning Adminis-
trator), described the subject property. He advised the Commission that the
existing facility, which is operated by Doreen Herbert, currently houses 8
persons. The facility has been in existence for more than 8 years and has
no record of having caused any problems. At the preliminary hearing, which
was held on June 12, there were three persons in support of the application
and three persons present in opposition to the application. Those who spoke
in opposition to the application felt that the subject neighborhood has too
many residential care homes already. Two letters had been received by the
Department of City Planning which expressed concern about any increase in
the number of residential care facilities in the neighborhood. He recom-
mended that the application be approved subject to seven specific conditions
which were contained in a draft resolution which he had prepared for consi-
deration by the Commission. After summarizing the conditions he recommended
adoption of the draft resolution.
Margaret Thornberry, 221 Miramar Avenue, asked if she were correct in
her understanding that the Commission could not place any limit on the number
of residential care homes with 6 or less occupants in the subject neighbor-
hood. Mr. Steele replied that the Commission does not have any control over
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 12 - JUNE 27, 1974
the number of residential care facilities housing 6 or less people. However,
the Commission had developed guidelines to be followed when facilities for a
larger number of people are being considered; and the Commission would be
reluctant to approve new facilities in neighborhoods were a large number of
facilities already exist.
Mrs. Thornberry then asked about the number of residential care facil-
ities which presently exist within two blocks of the subject site. Mr.
Steele replied that the staff of the Department of City Planning was aware
of only five facilities in that two block area.
Mrs. Thornberry estimated that there are already between 35 and 40
people living in residential care homes in the area; and, while she had no
specific objection to the particular facility presently under consideration,
she felt that the Commission should be aware that the number of such facil-
ities in the area is reaching a saturation point.
President Newman asked if the area is represented by a neighborhood
organization. After Mrs. Thornberry had replied in the negative, he sug-
gested that residents of the area would find the staff of the Department
of City Planning very helpful if they should decide to organize. He also
suggested that they should make their concerns known to OMI.
Mr. Steele advised the Commission that the staff had reached an under-
standing with the State Licensing Bureau that the licensing of additional
residential care homes in the subject neighborhood would not be desirable.
After further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Rueda, seconded
by Commissioner Porter, and carried unanimously that the draft resolution
be adopted as City Planning Commission resolution No. 7193 and that the
application be approved subject to the conditions which had been recommended
by Mr. Steele.
CU74.32 - 863 OCEAN AVENUE, SOUTH SIDE, 140 FEET EAST OF GENEVA
AVENUE.
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR A RESIDENTIAL CARE
FACILITY FOR 8 PERSONS; IN AN R-3 DISTRICT.
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director - Implementation (Zoning Adminis-
trator), described the subject property. He stated that the existing facil-
ity, which is operated by Lee and Carrie Williams, currently has an occupan-
cy of 8 persons. He stated that the facility has been in existence since
1965 and that it has no record of having caused any problems. At the pre-
liminary hearing, which was held on June 12, the applicant was the only
interested party present. No letters had been received by the Department
of City Planning on this matter. He recommended that the application be
approved subject to seven specific conditions which were contained in a
draft resolution which he had prepared for consideration by the Commission.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 13 -.«. JUNE 27, 1974
President Newman asked if the conditions which had been recommended
by Mr. Steele were acceptable to the applicant. Mr. Williams replied in
the affirmative.
No one was present to speak in opposition to the application.
After discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Ritchie, seconded by
Commissioner Fleishhacker, and carried unanimously that the draft resolu-
tion be adopted as City Planning Commission Resolution No. 7194 and that
the application be approved subject to the conditions which had been recom-
mended by Mr. Steele.
CU74.33 - 265 LEE AVENUE, WEST SIDE, 94.4 FEET SOUTH OF OCEAN
AVENUE.
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR A RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY
FOR 10 PERSONS; IN AN R-2 DISTRICT.
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director - Implementation (Zoning Adminis-
trator), described the subject property. He stated that the existing facil-
ity, which is operated by Robert and Mertle Harmon, currently has an occu-
pancy of 10 persons. The facility has been in operation since 1970 with
no record of having caused problems. At the preliminary hearing, which was
held on June 12, three persons were present in support of the application
in addition to the applicant. No one was present in opposition. The staff
of the Department of City Planning had received one letter objecting to
any additional residential care facilities in the area.
He recommended that the application be approved subject to seven spe-
cific conditions which were contained in a draft resolution which he had
prepared for consideration by the Commission.
President Newman asked if the conditions which had been recommended
by Mr. Steele would be acceptable to the applicant. Mr. Harmon replied in
the affirmative.
No one was present to speak in opposition to the applicantion.
After discussion it was moved by Commissioner Fleishhacker, seconded
by Commissioner Rueda, and carried unanimously that the draft resolution
be adopted as City Planning Commission Resolution No. 7195 and that the
application be approved subject to the conditions which had been recommended
by Mr. Steele.
CU74.12 - 1684-86 KIRKWOOD AVENUE, NORTHEAST SIDE, 50 FEET
SOUTHEAST OF PHELPS STREET.
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR A RESIDENTIAL CARE
FACILITY FOR 12 PERSONS; IN AN R-2 DISTRICT.
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director - Implementation (Zoning Adminis-
trator), described the subject property. He stated that the existing facil-
.MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 14 - JUNE 27, 1974
ity, which is operated by Helen Hall, currently has an occupancy of 12
persons. The facility has been in operation for five years and has no
record of having caused problems. At the preliminary hearing, which was
held on June 12, no one was present except the applicant. No letters had
been received on this matter. He recommended that the application be ap-
proved subject to seven specific conditions which were contained in a draft
resolution which he had prepared for consideration by the Commission. Af-
ter summarizing the conditions, he recommended that the draft resolution be
adopted.
President Newman asked if the conditions which had been recommended
by Mr. Steele would be acceptable to the applicant. Mrs. Hall replied in
the affirmative.
Commissioner Fleishhacker observed that the subject property is smaller
than most of those which had been considered earlier in the afternoon; yet,
whereas most of the previous facilities would be occupied by & individuals,
the one presently being considered would have an occupancy of 12 people.
Under the circumstances, he was concerned about the possibility that the
subject facility might be reaching a saturation point. Mr. Steele advised
the Commission that the State Licensing Bureau sets standards for the
amount of square footage which must be available in residential care facil-
ities.
After further discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Ritchie, seconded
by Commissioner Porter, and carried unanimously that the draft resolution
be adopted as City Planning Commission Resolution No. 7196 and that the ap-
plication be approved subject to the conditions which had been recommended
by Mr. Steele.
CU74.18 - 5922 CALIFORNIA STREET, NORTH SIDE, 9!i FEET J€ST
OF 2 1ST AVENUE.
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR A RESIDENTIAL CARE
FACILITY FOR 9 PERSONS; IN AN R-3 DISTRICT.
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director - Implementation (Zoning Adminis-
trator), described the subject property. He stated that the existing facil-
ity, which is operated by the Charila Foundation, currently has an occupan-
cy of 9 girls. The facility has been in operation since 1971 and has no
record of having caused trouble. At the preliminary hearing, which was
held on May 29, one person had been present to speak in opposition to any
expansion of the facility. Two letters had been received in support of the
application; and two letters had been received in opposition to the proposal.
He recommended that the application be approved subject to seven specific
conditions which were contained in a draft resolution which he had prepared
for consideration by Che Commission. After summarizing the conditions, he
recommended that the draft resolution be adopted.
Commissioner Porter asked about the age of the girls housed in the
facility. Mr. Steele replied that the girls range in age from 15 to 10
years.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 15 - JUNE 27, 1974
No one was present to speak in opposition to the application.
After discussion it was moved by Commissioner Porter seconded by Com-
missioner Fleishhacker, and carried unanimously that the draft resolution
be adopted as City Planning Commission Resolution No. 7197 and that the
application be approved subject to the conditions which had been recom-
mended by Mr. Steele.
CU74.19 - 4738 FULTON STREET, NORTH SIDE, 57.5 FEET EAST OF
24TH AVENUE.
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR A RESIDENTIAL CARE
FACILITY FOR 9 PERSONS; IN AN R-3 DISTRICT.
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director - Implementation (Zoning Adminis-
trator), described the subject property. He stated that the existing facil-
ity, which is operated by the Charila Foundation, currently has an occupan-
cy of 9 girls. The facility has been in operation since 1969 and has no
record of having caused problems. At the preliminary hearing, which was
held on May 29, no one was present other than the applicant. Two letters
had been received in support of the application; and two letters had been
received in opposition to the proposal. He recommended that the application
be approved subject to seven specific conditions which were contained in a
draft resolution which he had prepared for consideration by the Commission.
After summarizing the conditions, he recommended that the draft resolution
be adopted.
No one was present to speak in opposition to the application.
President Newman asked if the conditions which had been recommended
by Mr. Steele would be acceptable to the applicant. A representative of
the applicant replied in the affirmative.
After discussion it was moved by Commissioner Porter, seconded by Com-
missioner Rueda, and carried unanimously that the draft resolution be
adopted as City Planning Commission Resolution No. 7198 and that the appli-
cation be approved subject to the conditions which had been recommended by
Mr. Steele.
CU74.20 - 281 17TH AVENUE, WEST SIDE, 103.917 FEET NORTH
OF CLEMENT STREET.
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR A RESIDENTIAL CARE
FACILITY FOR 9 PERSONS; IN AN R-2 DISTRICT.
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director - Implementation (Zoning Adminis-
trator), described the subject property. He stated that the existing facil-
ity, which is operated by the Charila Foundation, currently has an occupancy
of 9 girls. It has been in operation since 1968 and has no record of having
caused problems. At the preliminary hearing, which was held on May 29, no
one was present other than the applicant. Two letters had been received in
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 16 - JUNE 27, 1974
support of the application; aad one letter had been received in opposition
to the proposal. He recommended that the application be approved subject
to seven specific conditions which were contained in a draft resolution
which he had prepared for consideration by the Commission. After summari-
zing the conditions, he recommended that the draft resolution be adopted.
Commissioner Fleishhacker observed that the Charila Foundation, which
cares for girls, houses 9 girls in its facility whereas the San Francisco
Boys Homes houses only 3 boys in each of its facilities; and he wondered
if there were anything significant about the difference in those numbers.
A representative of the Charila Foundation replied that his organization
has fewer facilities than the San Francisco Boys Home; and, as a result,
the additional child in each facility is important to their economics.
Furthermore, by talcing 9 girls into each of their facilities, they in-
crease the likelihood that a "core group" will be left whenever some of
the girls are required to leave the facility. In reply to a further ques-
tion raised by President Newman, he stated that girls are required to
leave the facility when they have become 18 years of age, when they have
graduated from high school, and are employable.
After further discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Porter, se-
conded by Commissioner Rueda, and carried unanimously that the draft
resolution be adopted as City Planning Commission Resolution No. 7199
and that the application be approved subject to the conditions which had
been recommended by Mr. Steele.
CU74.23 - 1916.BRODERICK STREET, EAST SIDE, 77.5 FEET SOUTH OF
SACRAMENTO STREET.
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR A RESIDENTIAL CARE
FACILITY FOR 21 PERSONS; IN AN R-3 DISTRICT.
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director - Implementation (Zoning Adminis-
trator), described the subject property. He stated that the existing facil-
ity, which is operated by Betty Schular, currently is occupied by 21 men.
The facility has been in existence since 1963. Prior to the time that pub-
lic notice was given that the subject application was to be considered,
there was no record that the facility had created any problems. However,
at the preliminary hearing, which was held on May 29, ten persons had
spoken in opposition to the application, citing cases of pan-handling and
littering and expressing fear of the clients. Two persons had spoken in
support of the application at that hearing. The staff had received six
letters and a petition with 24 signatures in opposition to the facility.
Rhoda Pierson, Chairman of the Society of California Caretakers Organ-
ization Inc., stated that her organization had not been aware of any com-
plaints about the subject facility prior to the hearing which was held by
Mr. Steele on May 29. Howeter, having been made aware of the complaints,
they felt a responsibility to find out if the complaints were valid. She
had sent out 41 letters to residents of the neighborhood asking them to
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 17 - JUNE 27, 1974
attend a meeting in the area; and she felt that the results of the meeting
had been very favorable. The members of her organization realized that
things such as pan-handling should not take place in a residential neigh-
borhood; and they hoped that they had resolved some of the problems which
had been associated with the subject facility. She advised the Commission
that the applicant had spent $30,000 to install a complete sprinkler sys-
tem in the building; and she indicated that the facility is in compliance
with all State and City codes. She urged that the application be approved;
and she promised the Commission that her organization would continue to
work with the applicant to resolve any problems which might arise in the
future. If the application were to be disapproved, the clients residing
in the building would have to be relocated; and, in view of the fact that
the facility has been in operation for Q years, she felt that it would be
most unfortunate to have to relocate the men at this time.
Commissioner Porter remarked that members of the Commission had taken
a field trip to the site; and she indicated that she was interested to
know how it was possible to house 21 people in the subject building. She
asked if the facility meets State floor space requirements. Mrs. Pierson
replied in the affirmative and advised the Commission that the State re-
quires that 100 square feet of floor space be available in single rooms
and that 140 square feet of space be available in rooms which are occupied
by two people.
Charles Turner stated that he was aware of the concerns which had
been expressed by residents of the neighborhood about the subject facil-
ity; however, with the right sort of rapport from the neighborhood, and
with good administration, he felt that the problems could be solved.
Sherri Johnson, representing the Health Committee of the Haight
Ashbury Community Development Corporation, submitted the following reso-
lution which had been adopted by her committee:
"WHEREAS The applicant board-and-care and residential
care facilities in the Haight-Ashbury and
Western Addition have been operating for long
periods of time in a generally successful
manner; and
"WHEREAS This community is in need of such services and
facilities; and
"WHEREAS The operators of these facilities have expressed
their interest in cooperating with community
groups and individuals for the betterment of their
services and to promote better health care for
this community; and
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 18 - JUNE 27, 1974
"WHEREAS It is recognized that the issue is a matter of
concern to the entire city and deserves the
attention of the City government and other area-
wide agencies and institutions,
"BE IT RESOLVED that the Health Committee of the Community
Development Corporation, Inc. supports the granting of
conditional use permits to the applicant board and care
and residential care facilities appearing before this
Commission today, June 27, 1974. Be it further resolved
that the CDC Health Committee requests the City and County
of San Francisco to direct the appropriate agencies of
City government to support the delivery of more comprehen-
sive health and social services to the resideats of these
facilities, and make attempts to ameliorate unfavorable
conditions caused by lack of services and support."
Bea Stevens, a Social Worker for the Westside Social Care Program,
informed the Commission that her organization visits the subject facility
one day each week in order to provide recreational activities and rehab-
ilitation services for the clients; and, as a result of the meeting which
had been held with residents of the neighborhood, her organization had
expressed its willingness to intensify its activities in the facility and
to be more careful about the type of clients which are being referred to
the facility.
Camile Heard, a Community Health Coordinator in the Haight Ashbury,
stated that some people had voiced the opinion that there are too many
residential care facilities in the Haight-Ashbury district; however, she
felt that there was an overwhelming support in the neighborhood for reten-
tion of those facilities.
Dr. William Dunlop, representing the After Care Agency, stated that
his organization has a relatively new treatment program and that it takes
clients on outings; and he believed that his organization could develop
an effective program with the operator of the subject facility.
Commissioner Fleishhacker stated that he was concerned about the
density of the subject facility; and he wondered if there was any corre-
lation between the amount of space available for each individual and
client improvement. Dr. Dunlop replied that many variables affect the
improvement process. While he personally felt that smaller residential
care homes are easier to work with, he observed that that option was not
available at the present point in time.
James H. Haden, 1902 Broderick Street, stated that he had been du-
bious about the subject facility's capability of handling 21 men; however,
after he had attended the meeting which had been called by Mrs. Pierson, he
had decided to lend his support to the application contingent upon ful-
fillment of the promises which had been made at that meeting.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 19 - JUNE 27, 1974
4 resident of 1645 Waller Street stated that he works with a group
of people who are concerned about the problems faced by the occupants
of residential care hones; and, while they acknowledged that some of
the homes are lacking in certain respe«ts, they felt that the situation
faced by the clients would be considerably more oppresive if the facil-
ity should have to be closed because they could not obtain conditional
use authorization from the Commission.
Leonard Greenstone, 2920 Sacramento Street, advised the Commission
that most of the people who live in single-family houses were not invited
to the meeting which had been called by Mrs. Pierson; and, while plans
might have been made for improving conditions in the facility, they had
not yet seen the results of those efforts. Residents of the facility
are still drinking in other people's doorways because they have nothing
else to do. He did not doubt that the operator of the facility was making
an effort to improve the situation; however, he expected that it would be
difficult to change the habits of 21 individuals.
Bobby Bremby, representing the applicant, stated that only 15 men
are living in the facility at the present time. He confirmed that only
people who had previously indicated opposition to the facility were in-
vited to the meeting which was called by Mrs. Pierson; however, prior to
the hearing which had been held by Mr. Steele, the applicant had sent
letters to everyone within a 300-foot radius of the property to advise
them of the hearing. He stated that he had taken the position that any
of the residents of the facility who could not be made to change their
bad habits would be asked to leave the facility.
Mr. Steele remarked that a great many people had appeared in oppo-
sition to the subject application during the preliminary hearing which
he had held on May 29; and he noted that there had been considerably
less opposition at the present hearing, probably because of the promises
which had been made by the applicant to solve the problems which the
facility has caused in the neighborhood. Under the circumstances, he
felt that it might be appropriate for the Commission to approve the ap-
plication, subject to conditions, for a period of one year in order to
see whether the problems can, in fact, be resolved. Therefore,,;^ recom-
mended the adoption of a draft resolution of approval which contained 8
specific conditions. After summarizing the conditions, he recommended
that the draft resolution be adopted.
Commissioner Porter asked how long the subject facility has been in
operation. Mr. Steele replied that the facility has been in operation
for seven years; however, no complaints had been received from residents
of the neighborhood until recently.
President Newman asked if the conditions which had been recommended
by Mr. Steele would be acceptable to the applicant. Mrs. Schular replied
in the affirmative.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 20 - JUNE 27, 1974
Commissioner Fleishhacker stated that he was concerned about the fact
that the subject facility, which houses 21 people, has no indoor recreational
facilities; and he wondered if the Commission should add an additional condi-
tion to the draft resolution which would address itself specifically to the
concerns which had been raised by residents of the neighborhood.
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, felt that approval of the applica-
tion as recommended by Mr. Steele for a period of one year would give the Com-
mission an opportunity to determine whether the facility can be operated pro-
perly with a population of 21 individuals. He stated that he had previously
been prepared to recommend that the subject application be disapproved; how-
ever, because of the very considerable progress which had been made in meet-
ing the concerns of residents of the neighborhood, he had decided to recommend
that the application be approved for one year. In conclusion, he noted that
the authorization could be terminated within the year if the facility should
continue to cause problems in the area.
After further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Ritchie, seconded
by Commissioner Rueda, and carried unanimously that the draft resolution be
adopted as City Planning Commission Resolution No. 7200 and that the applica-
tion be approved for one year subject to the conditions which had been recom-
mended by Mr. Steele.
At 4:25 p.m. President Newman announced a recess. The Commission recon-
vened at 4:35 p.m. and proceeded with hearing of the remainder of the agenda.
President Newman-was absent from the meeting room for the remainder of
the meeting; and Vice-President Porter assumed the chair. Commissioner Ritchie
was temporarily absent from the meeting room.
CU74.16 - 2860 HARRISON STREET, WEST SIDE, 120 FEET NORTH OF
25TH STREET.
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR A RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY
FOR 15 PERSONS; IN AN R-3 DISTRICT.
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director - Implementation (Zoning Adminis-
trator), described the subject property. He stated that the existing facility,
which is owned by Ernestine Caotillon, presently has an occupancy of 15 per-
sons. The facility has been in operation for over seven years and has had no
record of having caused problems. At the preliminary hearing, which was held
on June 12, the applicant'? granddaughter had submitted a letter in support
of the facility which had been signed by 10 area merchants. She had also
submitted a note from the parish priest. No other interested parties were
present. The Department of City Planning had received three additional let-
ters inquiring as to the nature of the facility. He recommended that the
application be approved subject to seven specific conditions which were con-
tained in a draft resolution which he had prepared for consideration by the
Commission. After summarizing the conditions, he recommended adoption of
the draft resolution.
■
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 21 - JUNE 27, 1974
No one was present to speak in opposition to the application.
After discussion it was moved by Ccraanissioner Miller, seconded by Com-
missioner Fleishhacker, and carried unanimously that the draft resolution be
adopted as City Planning Commission Resolution No. 7201 and that the applica-
tion be approved subject to the conditions which had been recommended by Mr.
Steele.
CU74.35 - 3000 26TH STREET, NORTHWEST CORNER AT FLORIDA STREET.
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR A RESIDENTIAL CARE
FACILITY FOR 12 PERSONS; IN AN R-3 DISTRICT.
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director - Implementation (Zoning Adminis-
trator), described the subject property. He stated that the proposed facil-
ity, which would be operated by Jessie Johnson, would be a new facility with
12 persons and would replace the facility operated by the applicant on 19th
Street for the past 3 years where there had been no record of any problems.
At the preliminary hearing, which was held on June 12, two individuals had
spoken in opposition to the application, suggesting that the facility was not
appropriate because of its stairs. He recommended that the application be
approved subject to seven specific conditions which were contained in a
draft resolution which he had prepared for consideration by the Commission.
After summarizing the conditions, he recommended that the draft resolution
be adopted.
During the course of Mr. Steele's presentation, Commissioner Ritchie
returned to the meeting room and reassumed his seat at the Commission table.
No one was present to speak in opposition to the subject application.
Commissioner Fleishhacker, noting that this was the first new facility
to be considered by the Commission during the current hearing, asked if the
neighborhood in which the facility would be located is becoming impacted
with such uses. Mr. Steele replied in the negative and indicated that he
was of the opinion that the proposed facility would meet the guidelines for
new residential care homes which was adopted by the Commission.
After discussion it was moved by Commissioner Fleishhacker, seconded by
Commissioner Miller, and carried unanimously that the draft resolution be
adopted as City Planning Commission Resolution No. 7202 and that the applica-
tion be approved subject to the conditions which had been recommended by Mr.
Steele.
CU74.8 - 2056 GROVE STREET, NORTH SIDE 181.25 FEET EAST OF COLE STREET.
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR A RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY
FOR 14 PERSONS; IN AN R-3 DISTRICT.
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director - Implementation (Zoning Adminis-
trator), described the subject property. He stated that the existing facil-
ity, which is operated by Julia Gilbert, currently has an occupancy for 14
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 22 - JUNE 27, 1974
persons. The facility had been in operation for four years with no record
of problems. At the preliminary hearing, which was held on June 12, one
person was present to speak in support of the application and one person
was opposed to having mentally ill persons in his neighborhood. He recom-
mended that the application be approved subject to seven specific conditions
which were contained in a draft resolution which he had prepared for consi-
deration by the Commission. After summarizing the conditions, he recommended
that the draft resolution be adopted.
No one was present to speak in opposition to the application.
After discussion it was moved by Commissioner Ritchie, seconded by Com-
missioner Fleishhacker, and carried unanimously that the draft resolution
be adopted as City Planning Commission Resolution No. 7203 and that the
application be approved subject to the conditions which had been recommended
by Mr. Steele.
Mr. Steele advised the Commission that the next five applications re-
quested authorization for residential care facilities in the Haight Ashbury
district; and he indicated that statements in support of all five facilities
had been made at the preliminary hearing on June 12 by the Haight Ashbury
Neighborhood Council, the Network Against Psychiatric Assault, a psychiatric
social worker involve in the area, and one private citizen.
CU74.15 - 1780 FELL STREET, NORTH SIDE, 23.25 FEET EAST OF
ASHBURY STREET.
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR A RESIDENTIAL CARE
FACILITY FOR 36 PERSONS; IN AN R-3 DISTRICT.
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director - Implementation (Zoning Adminis-
trator), described the subject property. He stated that the existing facil-
ity, which is operated by Edward and Nettie Ramos, currently has an occu-
pancy of 36 men. It has been in operation for nine years with no record of
having caused problems. At the preliminary hearing, which was held on June
12, the applicant was the only individual to address himself specifically
to this application. The Department of City Planning had received six
letters in support of the application and three letters in opposition to
the proposal. He recommended that the application be approved subject to
seven specific conditions which were contained in a draft resolution which
he had prepared for consideration by the Commission. After summarizing the
conditions, he recommended that the draft resolution be adopted.
J. Russell Wherritt, owner of property located at 1730 Fell Street,
stated that he was concerned about the density of the subject facility; further-
more, he felt that the clients which had been selected for the facility ..
were less than desirable. He advised the Commission that it is possible to
drive by the facility at almost any hour of the day or night and see people
lying or sitting in front of the building, drinking wine, etc.; and he did
not feel that such practices were contributing to the upgrading of the
'
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 23 - JUNE 27, 1974
neighborhood. If the application were to be approved, he suggested that
the Commission should establish-a condition requiring that indoor recrea-
tional facilities be provided.
Commissioner Fleishhacker noted that the Commission had approved a
previous application for a period of only one year in order to see whether
certain problems associated with that facility could be improved; and he
remarked that the same approach could be taken in the present case.
Edward Ramos, the operator of the subject facility, stated that he
owns a bus; and he advised the Commission that his clients are afforded ample
recreational opportunities. In fact, he indicated that he had taken
residents of the facility to Disneyland and to Hawaii.
Commissioner Ritchie asked Mr. Ramos if he felt that a one year time
limit on the Commission's approval of the application would be useful in
trying to get the clients to restrain their activities in front of the
building. Mr. Ramos replied that he does not allow is clients to drink
anything except Coca Cola outside of the building. He remarked that only
one individual had testified to the contrary; and he advised the Commission
that he could obtain signatures from a number of people in the neighborhood
in support of the application.
Allan B. Jacobs, Director of Planning, stated that the staff of the
Department of City Planning was not aware that the subject facility had
generated problems similar to those which had been generated by the Broderick
Street facility. In fact, when the staff had first taken a trip to the site,
they had actually assumed that the facility was located in another building
which had more people out front. He stated that the staff was not aware
that the facility had caused any problems; and, for that reason, they had
not recommended that the Commission's approval be limited to one year.
Mr. Steele confirmed that the difference in public response between
this facility and the Broderick Street facility during the preliminary
hearing had been as different as "night and day". The subject facility
had received a great deal of support from the neighborhood.
Commissioner Porter observed that the Conditional Use Authorization
could be revoked if it should be abused.
Commissioner Fleishhacker moved that the application be approved sub-
ject to the conditions recommended by Mr. Steele, indicating that he did so
with the understanding that the Commission would have the right to revoke
the authorization if problems should develop. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Rueda.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 24 - JUNE 27, 1974
When the question was called the Commission voted unanimously to adopt
the draft resolution as City Planning Commission Resolution No. 7204 and
to approve the application subject to the conditions which had been recom-
mended by Mr. Steele.
CU74.24 - 1640 HAYES STREET, NORTH SIDE, 162.50 FEET WEST OF
LYON STREET.
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR A RESIDENTIAL CARE
FACILITY FOR 30 PERSONS; IN AN R-3 DISTRICT.
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director - Implementation (Zoning Adminis-
trator), described the subject property. He stated that the existing facil-
ity, which is owned by Arnold Gridley, currently has an occupancy of 28
persons. The facility has been in operation for seven years with no re-
cord of having caused problems. No one had been present to testify on this
application during the preliminary hearing which was held on June 12; and
the Department of City Planning had received no letters concerning the ap-
plication. He recommended that the application be approved subject to seven
specific conditions which were contained in a draft resolution which he had
prepared for consideration by the Commission.
No one was present to speak in favor of or in opposition to the subject
application.
After discussion it was moved by Commissioner Ritchie, seconded by Com-
missioner Fleishhacker, and carried unanimously that the draft resolution
be adopted as City Planning Commission Resolution No. 7205 and that the ap-
plication be approved subject to the conditions which had been recommended
by Mr. Steele.
CU74.17 - 101 BUENA VISTA AVENUE EAST, SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
WALLER STREET.
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR A RESIDENTIAL CARE
FACILITY FOR 32 PERSONS; IN AN R-4 DISTRICT.
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director - Implementation (Zoning Adminis-
trator), described the subject property. He stated that the existing facil-
ity, which is operated by Ualden House, currently has a capacity of 32 per-
sons. It has been in operation for over four years with no record of prob-
lems. At the preliminary hearing, which was held on June 12, one person had
spoken in support of the application and four persons had spoken in opposi-
tion, citing the vehicles parked on the sidewalks and open garbage containers
in the front of the building as reasons for their opposition. No letters
had been received concerning the application. He believed that the problems
which had been mentioned at the preliminary hearing had been resolved; and
he recommended that the application be approved subject to eight specific
"conditions which were contained in a draft resolution which he had prepared
for consideration by the Commission. After summarizing the conditions he
recommended that the draft resolution be adopted.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 25 - JUNE 27, 1974
Keith Mathews, Administrator of Walden House, stated that he had
nothing to add to the comments which he had made during the preliminary
hearing.
Mrs. Adolfo de Urioste, owner of property at 139 Buena Vista Avenue
East, stated that she had no objections to having a Walden House facility
in the subject neighborhood; however, she felt that occupancy of the house
which was built in 1902 for a family of six by 32 individuals was excessive;
and she believed that occupancy by approximately 16 people would be more
suitable. She stated that that" neighborhood had experienced problems with
the garbage cans from the facility; but that problem, as well as others, had
been resolved. She noted that the neighborhood had been the subject of a
FACE rehabilitation program under which property owners were required to
bring their buildings up to code standards; and, under the circumstances,
the untidy situation which had been created by the facility had seemed un-
fortunate. She stated that she was also concerned about the safety of the
building which is a four story structure with only two exits; and she did
not feel that the two exits were sufficient for 32 teenagers. She had had
an opportunity to visit the inside of the building and had found that very
small rooms are occupied by as many as four boys; and she felt that it was
unfortunate that they should have to live in such dilapidated conditions
in nice residential area. She supported the work of the Walden Foundation;
however, she felt that the subject building should be occupied by only half
of its present residents.
Commissioner Porter aslied the staff if the subject facility has suffi-
cient space for 32 individuals. Mr. Steele replied that floor space require-
ments are governed by the State; and he indicated that the State had appa-
rently issued a license to the subject facility to house 32 individuals.
In reply to a further question raised by Commissioner Porter, Mr. Steele
stated that the State does make periodic inspections of facilities to which
it has granted licensing.
Commissioner Porter then asked if the garbage can problem which had
been mentioned at the preliminary hearing had been satisfactory resolved.
Mr. Steele replied in the affirmative and noted that the eighth condition
of the draft resolution which he had distributed to members of the Commis-
sion provided that the applicant was to maintain adequate, covered and
screened refuse facilities.
A resident of 44 Alpine Terrace advised the Commission that several
windows in the back of the subject building were broken. Also, in view of
the fact that the building has only one garage, she was concerned as to
whether residents of the building drive automobiles.
Mr. Mathews denied that the building has any broken windows; and he
indicated that none of the residents of the building drive automobiles.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 26 - JUNE 27, 1974
John Haderle, 145 Buena Vista Avenue, stated that he had raised object-
ions to the human traffic generated by the facility during the preliminary
hearing; however, that traffic had recently become less noticeable. He
advised the Commission that the applicant had arranged a meeting with resi-
dents of the neighborhood; and, while the garbage can problem had been re-
solved, he felt that other improvements could still be achieved. He indi-
cated that he was now prepared t>o withdraw his opposition to the application
providing that proof could be obtained that the building in its present
condition is safe for 32 occupants.
Mr, Steele stated that the State Fire Marshall had approved occupancy
of the building by 32 individuals.
Mr. Mathews confirmed that the safety of the building had been certified
by the Fire Marshall. Nevertheless, he personally regarded the building in
its present state as a fire trap; and he indicated that his organization
intended to install a new fire escape. He informed the Commission that the
normal occupancy of the building if approximately 23 or 24 people and that
the maximum capacity of 32 is utilized only during peak periods; however,
he indicated that the facility must maintain a relatively large population
just to break even.
Commissioner Ritchie felt that the burden for remedying any problems
associated with the facility should lie on the shoulders of the applicant;
and he reminded the applicant that any Conditional Use Authorization granted
by the Commission could be revoked at any time if problems should persist.
Commissioner Miller asked if the subject facility is required to ac-
cept clients from other counties. Mr. Mathews replied in the affirmative,
indicating that the facility houses 12 boys from Alameda County at the pre-
sent time; however, those individuals were arrested in San Francisco.
Commissioner Miller then stated that he had no objection to people
coming to San Francisco for treatment if it is the best which they can ob-
tain; however, in view^>f the subject facility's density problems, he felt
that housing of individuals from other counties should not be encouraged.
After all, San Francisco, -which has only 17 percent of the population of the
Bay Area, supports 34% of the area's welfare costs.
Commissioner Porter observed that San Francisco sends many individuals
to nursing homes in other communities because those facilities are operated
far less expensively.
Joseph Gross, owner of property at 111 Buena Vista Avenue, stated that
he was in favor of the applicant's proposal with certain reservations. While
he was in full agreement that such facilities should be located in residen-
tial areas rather than in districts such as the Tenderloin, he pointed out
that the subject neighborhood, in spite of its R-4 zoning, has a remarkably
low density; and he was concerned about the number of people living in the
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 27 - JUNE 27, 1974
subject building. However, if the high population density is to be main-
tained in the building, he felt that additional security and safety mea-
sures should be provided; and he believed that construction of another fire
escape for the building would be highly desirable.
Commissioner Porter observed that no building is entirely safe; how-
ever, the Commission had been advised that the subject building meets cur-
rent code standards.
Commissioner Ritchie felt that the number of residents in the building
should provide sufficient monthly income to enable the applicants to get
the building in good repair.
After further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Fleishhacker,
seconded by Commissioner Ritchie, and carried unanimously that the draft
resolution be adopted as City Planning Commission Resolution No. 7206 and
that the application be approved subject to the conditions which had been
recommended by Mr. Steele.
CU74.21 - 737 CLAYTON STREET, WEST SIDE, 208.75 FEET OF
WALLER STREET.
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR A RESIDENTIAL CARE
FACILITY FOR 15 PERSONS; IN AN R-3 DISTRICT.
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director - Implementation (Zoning Adminis-
trator), described the subject property. He stated that the existing facil-
ity, which is operated by Lois Deed, currently has an occupancy for 15 per-
sons. The facility has been in operation for 8 years with no record of
problems. At the preliminary hearing, which was held on June 12, two per-
sons spoke in favor of the application. One letter had been received in
favor of the proposal; and a telegram had been received from Susan Mitchell
of 175 Belvedere Street and Sal Territo of 441 Cole Street stating that they
would not approve of a residential care facility at 737 Clayton Street un-
der any conditions. He recommended that the application be approved subject
to seven specific conditions which were contained in a draft resolution
which he had prepared for consideration by the Commission. After summarizing
the conditions, he recommended that the draft resolution be adopted.
Michael Smith, representing the community Advisory Board of the West-
side Community Mental Health Center, Inc. , read and submitted the following
statement which had been prepared by Robert Covington, Executive Director
of his organization. The letter read as follows:
"The Community Advisory Board of the Westside Community Mental
Health Center wishes to express its support for the Conditional
Use Permit Applications before the Commission affecting Residen-
tial Care facilities within the Westside Catchment Area. As you
know, Residential Care facilities provide vitally needed services
to residents of our community who need their particular kind of
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - 28 - JUNE 27, 1974
care. Vfe believe these facilities before you today have been
operational for some time and have successfully shown their
ability to blend in with the community at large. As Westside
has a great interest in the overall field of mental health,
we will in the next few months be looking at ways of offering
further support for both the operators and clients of these
homes.
"tfe strongly urge the Commission grant approval of these Con-
ditional Use permits."
No one else was present in favor of or in opposition to the subject
application.
After discussion it was moved by Commissioner Ritchie, seconded by
Commissioner Rueda, and carried unanimously that the draft resolution be
adopted as City Planning Commission Resolution No. 7207 and that the ap-
plication be approved subject to the conditions which had been recommended
by Mr. Steele.
CU74.22 - 115 FREDERICK STREET, SOUTHEAST CORNER DELMAR STREET.
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR A RESIDENTIAL CARE
FACILITY FOR 21 PERSONS; IN AN R-3 DISTRICT.
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director - Implementation (Zoning Adminis-
trator), described the subject property. He stated that the existing facil-
ity, which is operated by Lawyer Pearson, currently has an occupancy of 21
persons. He stated that the facility has been in operation for 9 years
with no record of problems. At the preliminary hearing, which was held on
June 12, one person spoke in favor of the application. The Department of
City Planning had received one letter in support of the application. He
recommended that the application be approved subject to seven specific con-
ditions which were contained in a draft resolution which he had prepared
for consideration by the Commission. After summarizing the conditions, he
recommended that the draft resolution be adopted.
No one was present in the audience to speak in favor of or in opposi-
tion to the subject application.
After discussion it was moved by Commissioner Ritchie, seconded by
Commissioner Fleishhacker, and carried unanimously that the draft resolution
be adopted as City Planning Commission Resolution No. 720G and that the
application be approved subject to the conditions which had been recommended
by Mr. Steele.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynn E. Pio
Secretary
■
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11